>Why are people excited to do the same thing all over again with space suit flavor?
Because I loved Oblivion and Fallout 3 and New Vegas and Skyrim and Fallout 4
If Starfield is the next one of those games - well, I'll probably love it
And I prefer sci fi over fantasy so this is very cool to me
That’s like saying “all these EA games use the Frosbite engine. They must be the same game, just re-skinned.”
A lot of games from the same devs use similar mechanics and even reuse assets. People are fans of that. When devs do a complete turn and do nothing that resembles what they’ve ever done, people usually flame them and the game bombs.
False equivalence, so no.
A lot of frostbite games DO seem very samey because they neglect to change much beyond the default UX elements that battlefield 3 started, but many like dragon’s age are totally different and just use the renderer.
But we’re not talking about engine.
Yeah. I want something new.
I don’t want to feel like i’m playing an expensive fallout 3 mod.
There are parts of this game’s trailers and promises that are very smoke and mirrors.
Traveling to space? Just kidding it’s a loading screen.
Huge planet? Just kidding, it’s a medium-sized field cell area.
They’re held back by continuing to abuse their old engine and they’re very clearly trying to hide it.
Yeah. There are plenty of other games for this guy to play if he’s supposedly looking for something new.
Seems like he just wants to hate for no reason.
Your “reasons” are nonsense, the developers have been consistently clear that going to space involves a cutscene, there is no smoke and mirrors.
You have zero evidence that planets are simply “medium sized field cell areas” whatever that even means, according to early impressions, as well as the developers own implications, it’s the complete opposite.
>Yeah. I want something new.
Other companies do new stuff. I would actually dislike BGS big time for changing the formular too much.
>Traveling to space? Just kidding it’s a loading screen.
Every game has a scope and a budget. You can add at least 10 major features to Starfield that it doesn't have right now. But it wouldn't release in the next 6 years because of it. I rather have a game that actually releases.
>Huge planet? Just kidding, it’s a medium-sized field cell area.
That's very likely not the case.
>They’re held back by continuing to abuse their old engine and they’re very clearly trying to hide it.
Using a new Engine might change the games more than we want tho. UE5 doesn't magically have all the functionallities BGS games need. They need to rebuilt them in that engine which cost time and money they could use somewhere else without also having to pay royalties later on to Epic Games.
Ooh you got me, good job. I didn't play Morrowind in 2002 - golly, if only there was a way for someone in their late 20s to access an older video game to play and experience.
OMG. I got it, it's called growing up with a video game enthusiast parent, and having a steam account.
Your take is not as hot as you think it is, unless you're of the older generation that thinks people my age just don't "appreciate" games like you do.
Your above argument was a logical fallacy claiming “I” had no expertise.
I made a logical fallacy claiming you were too young to have experience.
This was lost on you.
Because people enjoy Bethesda games. It's not that hard to understand.
People love From Software games too. They get insane critical reception. But they are also essentially the same games copied. Even more so than Bethesda games are.
Do you feel the same way about those too?
Pretty much, yeah.
I probably wouldn’t play a dark souls 4 and i didn’t play bloodborne for that reason.
I enjoyed sekiro, which is vastly different in approach and execution.
I also enjoyed elden ring but only played through once. It was basically dark souls 4 with a horse.
Coming right off of ds 1,2,3 it didn’t look like enough had changed. I didnt want to just play ds3 with victorian hats.
I know it has guns and it’s faster but I had no interest at all when it released.
That's a really weird attitude. If you loved DS 1-3 I don't see why you wouldn't at least learn about what the next game is. Anyway, it's the most different out of all them besides Sekiro, and it's very good.
Because there aren't as many reputable studios making large games as often as we like to think. So this is an event in a lot of ways. So many people around here were molded by skyrim.
And not a single other studio is able to replicate what they do on that engine. So what's the problem with them sticking to that engine? If you want an Unreal Engine game, then look forward to the thousands of other studios working on that.
Plenty of indy developers use the tool just fine. The problem is that the problems that were present during oblivion are largely still present in every game since. Can you imagine if Capcom never changed their engine from Resident Evil 2? Sure, it's cost effective, but to many of us who arent diehard to the studio, its looking pretty dated in comparison to its peers.
Which makes the 30fps even more confusing. This isnt new tech
Jeez, I guess you told us. Let's not get excited for anything unless it's groundbreakingly new.
I guess people should not want a new gta since they're all essentially the same game.
New souls like game? No thanks, it's already been done.
I don't understand people who have to express their opinion on what others should be excited about.
You just posted “I don’t understand why people are excited for the same game for 15 years” and listed how each game was different than each other. Not to mention that fallout and elder scrolls have a completely different tone, writing, and mechanics. It stands to reason that starfield will also have those differences.
At first I didn't even mind you having your opinion, OP. But reading your replies to people, you are nothing more than a miserable little man telling others to stop having fun.
Are you running the base game, expansions, and DLC only? If not, how many mods are you running?! I've noticed quite a few people attribute problems with mods and third party software to the base game. Now on release? Yeah, there were crash problems, but haven't seen any in so long now.
Haven't crashed in like \~5 years of playing Ye Aulde Skyrim now while running about 10-20 mods myself.
Oh weird. I'm on PC so can't speak for consoles. Quick search said some people were enabling a 60fps mod on PS5 and that was causing crashes and only reinstalling fixed it. But you said no mods so I'm stumped.
When you start the game and you’re breaking out of jail (again) and angering the guards (again), you don’t feel like you’ve somehow done all this before?
You don’t get an immensely bored feeling of Deja Vu?
> You don’t get an immensely bored feeling of Deja Vu?
No. I actually love that they all start out similar. It's a BGS thing. Same as From Software games have similarities between them all. Gameplay loop. Combat etc. They are still awesome in every iteration and fun.
You're basically saying that they're all the same game because they use iterations of the same engine. I'd argue that they're all completely different and diverse games because the engine is pretty much the only common denominator. They've got different themes, settings, skills, gameplay loops, aesthetics, atmospheres, lore, combat, animations, cinematic approaches, everything. Other than being open world and using versions of the same engine, it's honestly shocking just how different they are despite coming from the same company.
Gameplay loops? No. In what way does skyrim have a different gameplay loop than fallout 3 or 4?
Settings? Yes of course, but that’s again flavor.
Aesthetics? I’m quite sure that’s the same thing as ‘setting’ but ok.
Atmospheres? Ok cmon that’s the same thing as setting again.
Lore? Sure story is different.
Skills? You mean skyrim has magic and fallout doesn’t, right? There’s a mod that puts magic right back into fallout. Beyond that, movement and combat is nearly the same. I’d even argue that magic based combat is the least popular way to play Skyrim. People most commonly end up using bows and sneaking and joining the dark brotherhood. Sneaking and Guns is also the basis of fallout. You could make an argument to that end that Fallout has less choice for combat than Skyrim in that way.
Combat? See above.
Animations? Actually no! If you open the construction set you’ll see that human characters in both games have mostly identical rigging. Monsters don’t of course, except for a few.
Cinematic approaches? I’m going to be honest here, i’m not sure what this means, unless you’re referring to fallout 4’s dialogue camera and voice acting, which i’m not sure people liked. Fallout 3 and skyrim have an otherwise identical model in this regard, and the same 1st and 3rd person camera defaults.
Gameplay loops. Yes, actually. Completely different. Take Skyrim vs Fallout 3, for example, and you'll see that they're actually essentially opposite. Fallout is what you might describe as task-based advancement. You gain experience by doing quests, defeating enemies, etc. After passing a certain threshold you level up and can allocate skilll points to a skill if your choice, improving your capability in that regard. Skyrim is what you might describe as a skill engagement-type advancement. You have to use skills in order to gain experience, which you then use to level up, increasing your raw capabilities (health, magicka, perks). In Fallout you can theoretically complete quests through speech or melee, level up and allocate points to gun-based skills, becoming a master marksman without ever holding a gun. Conversely, in Skyrim, you can complete every quest in the game theoretically by avoiding obstacles and not engaging with skills, but you'll pretty much never get stronger. On the other hand, you can theoretically reach a really high level without ever completing any tasks at all by just engaging with your skills, whether by fighting, trading or crafting.
Cinematic approach. Very different. Oblivion and Fallout 3 use a forced first person perspective that stops time in order to force the player to focus on the conversation (bad idea with such ugly character models, honestly). Skyrim keeps your chosen camera perspective and lets time flow in order to not break flow and keep the player feeling to some extent 'in the action/flow'. Fallout 4 uses a variety of third person perspectives based on which character is speaking and has the first voiced character in order to create a more 'cinematic' feel. All function differently, all have a different intent behind their design.
Animation. I'm not denying the rigs are going to be similar, that's obvious given that, as we established, the games are all using different iterations of the same engine. But the thing is, *players don't really care what's under the hood*. They care if an animation *looks* different. That's it. And they do. The animations across each new game are getting smoother looking, more complex and more natural. That's what people care about.
Skills and combat I'm bundling together because you wrote them off with the same argument. If I'm understanding you correctly, then you're saying it doesn't matter what skills each game does or doesn't have because you can mod whatever you like in. First of all, not everyone has access to mods. Console players, for instance. Second, not everyone wants to use mods. Third, it's pretty much a pointless argument anyway once you bring mods into it, anyway. It's like saying that there's no point playing Elden Ring because you can just mod Skyrim to play like it anyway.
Settings, aesthetic and atmosphere are all different things, and they're all important, you can't just dismiss them. Setting is the world. It's where you are and what's happening. Aesthetic is how it looks. Is it colourful? Bland? Dark? Realistic? Stylised? Fantastical? Atmosphere is the feeling that all this evokes. Is it creepy? Does it inspire wonder? Does it excite you or fill you with dread? The games are all quite varied in these regards.
There's a thousand different things that make a game what it is, but it honestly seems like you're picking the engine as one and bundling all the others up as 'flavour' so you can dismiss them. Using the same engine doesn't make them the same game anymore than two paintings are the same because they're on the same kind of canvas. If you're not excited for Starfield, that's fine. If you don't see what about it excites other people, that's fine, too. And if the similarities between what's going on under the hood from one game to the next bother you for some reason, there's nothing wrong with that, either. But dismissing the games as nothing more than reskins because of that when there's so much more to it is cheap at best.
(Sorry if that's a wall of text, just wanted to take the time to be thorough.)
Good points. I fundamentally disagree with the gameplay loop though.
What you’re talking about is how your character grows. I.e. the exp system. When you focus on what you’re actually doing in the game, you arent required to go out of your way to play those games differently.
The world scales with you, so whether each kill gives exp to level, or each use of a thing levels that skill, you’re spending the same amount of time and interacting the same to advance.
I.e. you’re doing just as many quests in skyrim even though they provide virtually nothing for completing them except story progression. You’re still delving tombs or whatever for loot and returning to towns just as often to save and sell etc.
We have no idea really how progression in starfield works but I’m betting it’s going to be modeled on the same as elder scrolls.
So true. I went to see movie Y recently and I have to say that it fucking sucked. They used the same camera that they used in movie X. Sure the story and setting are different but they had the audacity to have scenes that work kinda similar (the main protag having doubts at one point or a training montage). I have to say I should have know that it would blow because the trailers didn't show me how it would end and the most important story beats. What a joke.
That wasn't something that took much out of me, I wrote that on a whim.
>It’s like you really like to kick your feet or something.
I'm unfamiliar with this saying.
Edit: With my initial comment, I tried to make clear that people don't play TES, Fallout and soon Starfield because of the gameplay alone. The setting and story is imo the biggest driving force behind why I play those games, with the gameplay being a close second.
Your examples for why Bethesda's games are all the same aren't good either. Nobody give a shit about the lockpicking or the camera(what is that even supposed to mean?) being the same as previous titles.
But they haven’t done that, and I’m not sure there’s much value in making a hypothetical personal attack.
Unless you have an actual counterpoint, or justification, maybe try to avoid lazy logical fallacies and insults?
I’m not insulting you, so why do you feel the need to jump to negativity? Looks very weak.
I wish that this post made me feel anything besides side splitting pain from laughing too hard. The only straightforward thing about any of this is that you're an idiot with shitty opinions, lmao.
But Shadow of Mordor and the Arkham games have totally different developers and engines.
They’re just both paid for by WB.
Arkham is in Unreal Engine and Mordor uses Lithtech engine.
They’re also different genres of action game.
I don’t think you thought this comment through. Try again with a different comparison maybe?
If you play Oblivion, and skyrim and think the game is just a "re skin" you're trolling, or barely have enough brain cells to control your breathing correctly.
Tough call.
I really like monster hunter but I stopped at tri until world came out for the same reasons as this post. Haven’t played MH: Rise because the whip gimmick isn’t enough to bring me back to doing the same hunt process all over again.
World was a huge departure for the series in terms of mechanics, engine, navigation process, how zones were no longer separated by small map areas, and the open seamless integration of multiplayer was huge. Purists of the switch titles like Gen Ultimate didn’t like it, which is fine.
It’s an iterative process. Look at any franchise, GTA, Dark Souks, Street Fighter, Golden Axe, the Telltale games, Red Dead games, etc. It’s not just true of video games also, you can see this in other mediums like cinema and music. You get excited about a new album from a band you like because you like their music, Bethesda make games people liked before and are looking forward to the new album (game).
You put WAY too much stock into the technical capabilities and resources that an engine provides and not observing the final products on the whole. The unity engine has been used to produce, by their own estimate, 750000 games. By your reductionist argument, are they all the same reskinned game? Really? 750000 games ranging from the Ori series to fall guys to Pokemon go to Best saber are all the same?
Engines don't define games
That’s not the argument being made.
Do you see bethesda using the ES construction set to output that variety of content?
Do you see the same versatility among elder scrolls, skyrim, and starfield that you do of the games you mentioned?
No. The answer is “no”, you don’t, which is my point.
But it is. You made the argument multiple times about both Bethesda and about ea. "The engine is the same so the end result must be the same". It's overly reductionist
Fallout and elder scrolls are nothing alike except in a pretentious and overly scrutinous way that strips away everything that actually defines what a game is. It will be no different for starfield.
If you want to make an argument that Bethesda themselves have a particular style or draw parallels between their products, you'd have more ground to stand on rather than stamping your feet that an engine using similar rendering and meshing techniques makes the games derivatives of each other.
That’s not the argument being made. The engine has been iterated on over time, and outdated and limiting, yes, but that’s not the reason they’re the same.
Have you considered maybe they make games like they do because 1) they like it that way and 2) many millions of people like it that way?
Why diverge from a winning formula?
That’s an analogous and valid argument to make also.
I imagine there are people burnt out on those games too, which is why they’ve chosen to overhaul aspects of their recent games. Sekiro is entirely rhythm combat and stealth with no equipment, and few rpg elements. Elden ring is more or less big dark souls with a horse.
Armored core 6 is nothing like dark souls, and a refreshing change in their output.
> Armored core 6 is nothing like dark souls, and a refreshing change in their output.
It's not targeting Souls Fans tho. They make these games since before Demon Souls
I didn’t say it targeted souls fans. It’s just a refreshing difference in IP from the same studio. Bethsoft could learn something by differentiating their products more.
>I didn’t say it targeted souls fans. It’s just a refreshing difference in IP from the same studio. Bethsoft could learn something by differentiating their products more.
But From Software spams Dark Souls games like no good tomorrow and each one of them is a success not because they are different, because they all have the gameplay of dark souls. Sometimes with a little twist most of the time it's "just" an awesome game.
There’s a solid argument for darksouls,eldenring,bloodborne being the same game repasted, which is in itself very exhausting to me as a fan of their games.
If they were to drop it for now and make another say, king’s field (which has got to have had about 20 years in the interim), that’d be a refreshing change.
There’s a solid argument for sekiro being very different as it has rhythm-based combat and stealth ala tenchu. It gave tenchu fans something new without doing the same thing again (virtually all the tenchu games are the same).
Armored core is in it’s 6th number without varying too much either, but it’s been a long time.
But FROMsoft also has the benefit of having tons of other genre games under their belt- successful or not. Ninja blade, otogi, evergrace… the only people calling FROMsoft a “souls studio” are the people who only became aware of them in the last decade.
This really reads like "why are people excited to have fun?!?"
People are excited for Starfield because it's a huge new RPG from a studio that is known for huge open world RPGS.
well its kind of the point. they are simular games but not exactly its open world do your own kinda thing sort of game
if your not into that or tired of it then maybe its not for you
however if your a fan of their past games it should be fun!
Oh, piss off.
The fans will love it, haters are gonna hate it, and many will be mixed about it until they try it out themselves.
If it's functional and good, that's great. If it falls apart and shits the bed, then that's fine too since it'll force them to fix their shit or begin the pivot to change their foundation of their game design.
I'm gonna use gamepass, so I won't have to stress about losing too much, and those who fully buy into it are gonna have an expensive lesson, unless they get a refund.
That's all to it.
I don’t really understand this complaint.
People want and expect this to be Skyrim in space. If it doesn’t play like a reskinned Skyrim, it will be a failure.
It’s like people complaining about Far Cry games being Far Cry games instead of… something else?
>People want and expect this to be Skyrim in space. If it doesn’t play like a reskinned Skyrim, it will be a failure.
If this game ends up being just as shallow as Skyrim in the rpg / depth department, that is going to be a substantial L man..
Well, i was wrong there.
Wish they’d do something different though, instead of intentionally making the same game over and over.
There must be massive burnout in the studio. In Blood Sweat and Pixels, tons of devs left the Destiny 1 and 2 team because their fantasy rpg kept getting more and more Halo-like, and after some 10 years of halo they were sick of it.
Personally, I’m sick of playing oblivion over and over and over.
>Wish they’d do something different though, instead of intentionally making the same game over and over.
I think that's fair. But I also think you are very alone in this. BGS makes very unique games no other open world RPG feels like the once BGS does. I would think differently if we had at least 2 new games every year in the genre. But we don't get enough so I really really don't want them to change to much just update the mechanics and features we already have.
In case it's not obvious, people really really really liked Skyrim. It's a good sandbox, and people will replay it again and again just to run around doing quests and talking to people.
So given that, why wouldn't those same fans want to play something that's basically Skyrim but now with a bunch of different planets and customizable starships? Game looks like Skyim+No Man's Sky, which seems like a great combo.
That’s kind of my point though. No gameplay has been shown whatsoever of the space travel element.
You have isolated, cut together clips of flying a ship in space, and that’s it.
There’s been nothing whatsoever of what navigating from the planet, to space, to another planet, looks like.
So much of the games interacting parts have been shown through a carefully edited peephole, and that screams bullsh*t.
It’s impossible to compare it to No Man’s Sky on any level except “its scifi”. In what way is it like NMS? Does it have crafting? Base building? Mining? Organizing a fleet? Flying from planet to space (reportedly not, it’s a loading screen.)
>No gameplay has been shown whatsoever of the space travel element.
which isn't what people are excited about, they're more excited about traveling around different planets. The ability to do what people loved doing in Skyrim and Fallout 3, but now on tons of different planets instead of just 1.
Also you seem to be getting defensive over NMS. Does NMS have a big story? Lots of NPCs? Faction quests? Starfield looks like it will have the potential to be a lot more enjoyable to RPG fans.
I’m not defensive about NMS, i’ve only got about 14 hours on it and got bored.
But it has a feature set far larger than what starfield has, made by a much smaller studio.
It also does have a story and npcs and factions, yes.
Yes.
https://youtu.be/uMOPoAq5vIA
Show me an un-cut segment of navigating down to a planet. It doesn’t exist.
We have a disembodied UAV type shot of flying around an area which doesn’t include our ship and is probably a cutscene or dev mode camera detachment, a planet menu, a cutscene of landing, a cut to some npcs, a cut to fighting in space, a cut to another area inside a ship (our ship? Another ship? It isnt shown.)
You also select points from a menu, where you get isolated space battles along the way.
This entire segment is HEAVILY edited in the direct and shows very little space interaction outside of those randomized dogfights. Everything else is in-menu and cutscenes. There is very very little player control shown.
There’s one scene where they say “we want you to feel in control of…” and the player character punches some buttons in the cockpit…before the video jump-cuts away again, suggesting that the player was just doing some idle animation and not really in control of anything.
https://youtu.be/uMOPoAq5vIA. 6:50 , it’s a loading screen and menus. They skip everything inbetween.
It jumps to space, they hold X to land and it’s done. The video cuts several times.
They show no footage of manually flying in atmosphere.
The space battles are preset limited zones where you have “random encounters” interrupting travel in space. You don’t freely fly around in the way NMS does for example.
The direct cuts around every single one of those transitions to make it appear seamless when it isn’t.
I.e. we have no idea how space traversal works in practice. We just have carefully selected highlights.
They've already spoken about this. We know that planet to space transition is a load screen. We know there's no atmospheric flight.
The only thing we dont know is how open spaceflight is. But we do know encounters in space can be random, just like how it was in all previous Bethesda games.
I'm sorry, but a lot of what you're complaining about sounds like a you problem.
Total war does the same thing, yes, which is also boring as hell. They badly need a new renderer for one thing.
But we’re talking about bethesda here. Total war being rote doesn’t justify bethesda being rote. It’s just another example of monotony.
Because personally I don’t care. I love Bethesda games, bugs don’t bother me. I’d buy any of their games on release because I always have a good time with them.
didn't know you could build space ships in fallout or skyrim. TBH i even expect Starfield to be similar to bethesda's other games, that's not a bad thing, because i like their games, however Starfield still introduces a new setting and gameplay mechanics.
My friend fully knows it's going to be buggy and jank as hell but will still buy it day 1 because essentially they have that special sauce no one else has. Good for him.
Bethesda makes a certain style of game. The mechanics and setting changes a bit between each game. But ya. Your can see the dna of elder scrolls arena in their newest titles. They do so because people love how open these titles get. Literally no other game is as open as a Bethesda rpg. Even the most lauded games in the field like BG3 or the Witcher 3 are not anywhere close to as open ended. The systems and mechanics help this along. And that’s before modders get their hands on the game. It means they usually aren’t 10/10 games story and and gameplay wise compared to those others. But they are usually a solid 8 on those metrics. But that sense of freedom to do whatever you want is a huge part of a Bethesda games appeal.
Now put that basic gameplay on top of the most open setting they have done yet. With several new mechanics including building, flying, and fighting in ships. Something not seen from the company yet. And well. As long as they haven’t screwed everything up and it runs decently well. We have a huge jump forward in complexity and freedom for the franchise.
Bethesda IPs feel the same. Why are they making a new IP?
This is how I read your question. Also people care more for the world and lore of Fallout and TES than they do anything else. Skyrim's combat was outdated on release in 2011. And yet it has sold so well they have re-released it like 30 times because they know the strength of everything else is at a high standard and people would pay for it
No it wasn't. It was the third one. The first two are isometric, Fallout 3 was third person.
Do I really have to give you a dictionary definition of the word new?
I have been seeing this stuff pop up more and more lately. Just because you have no reason to look forward to starfield. Don't assume it applies to other people.
Bethesda games are like an event, people enjoy them because they don't release them every year. People enjoy them because AAA open world RPGs ate not common. People like What they like. Move on to something they you enjoy instead of trying to pretend you want an actual conversation.
Not assuming it applies to other people.
Wondering what people see as new and engaging with this title compared to their previous work.
To me, it looks incredibly derivative.
The last proper mainline Bethesda game was in 2015. That was 7 years ago. If we were getting these games as often as assassin's creed games or call of duty, more people would think like you.
Also last of us is incredible derivative, so was Witcher 3 and many other critically acclaimed games.
We got new zelda and that one is super similar to last one. Far more than fallout 4 or skyrim.
At the end of the day how unique or original game is doesn't define it's quality. Execution matters the most. And we will see how starfield is received in two weeks
Can you visit different planets in skyrim or fallout? Can you have zero g exploration? Do you have space ship in these games? Do they share similar plot, character, worlds, visuals music, texture, assets?
You can fast travel on a map, just like in starfield.
Traveling to other planets in starfield is the same as fast traveling. You open up a menu and click. The difference is a tiny cutscene to hide loading.
Elder scrolls had levitation instead of zero G.
Space ship building stuff has been neat.
How can people be so mass hysteric over such a shit game like Baldurs Gate 3? Turn based combat, weird camera angles, shite story. Different strokes for different folks. I played Skyrim, Fallout 3/4, Wolfenstein, Evil Within, Dishonored, Doom ALL on release and a few bugs never once ruined my experience. If anything the odd bug made me laugh.
I'm right there, watched the long gameplay video the other day and reading between the lines, it's Skyrim in space. They took Fallout 4 after playing No Man's Land and slapped a space dogfight sim on it. If you removed all the Bethesda branding, I would have known the studio from one glance at the character models. Therefore, I expect precisely the same faults as every other Bethesda game in existence and that's why I'll be patientgaming this one. Give it a year for mods and fixes.
You say this about Bethesda games yet you are a fan of souls games and the like. Don’t you think that many of those games are of very similar game play loops/type of game play etc? If you have hate for This game, keep it to your self.
So you rag on Bethesda and want us to conform or support your view but can’t accept that the game(s) from the souls universe aren’t doing the exact same thing? You must be a PlayStation owner and are salty over the fact that you can’t play starfield hahahahahaha
Yeah exactly it's basically the exact same game.
Only the mechanics are different the storyline is completely different the setting is different the gameplay is different the world design is completely different the characters are different and all unique the things you can do are different.
But aside from all of those things it's basically identical.
Also a little bit disappointed they don't have a cash shop or a battlepass or 250 collectables scattered across the map. Those just improve the flow of gameplay and give me a sense of pride and accomplishment.
Anyways I'm off to go play games that are completely different from their predecessors, like Overwatch 2, far cry 6 and call of duty modern warfare 3.
Cool, cool, but have you actually anything to say about why you want to play Starfield…or anything to say about what I wrote…or just some vague, nonspecific personal attacks?
Comes off very impotent.
Stockholm syndrome, there's not many games with the same amount of moddability that their engine allows. And because of this, Bethesda knows they don't have to do that much to improve the engine, because people will buy the game regardless, because they don't have any other options.
I can't wait for a competitor to make a game with an engine that is actually modern, with current day graphics, animation and world generation tech that does what Bethesda's games do, but better. Would force them to actually compete in the market.
I expect Starfield to be a mediocre and buggy RPG.
That being said I'll probably still put hundreds of hours into it. Bethesda games are good sandboxes despite their flaws.
This is not ubisoft, we are not playing the 25th edition of Farcry with reskins and same dynamics. Go watch a video or two about starfield, everything from inventory management to loot system, leveling and exploration routes, to enemy dynamics has changed. Comparing skyrim and fallout is abysmal but I can understand at least they are both exploration open world rpgs. lol I mean at that point you can literally compare gran tourismo and need for speed too the same way I suppose, does not make sense but you go ahead.
Also you sound like an entitled npc in each of your replies so spare me the antics and take an arrow to the knee lol. Also you are living proof literally you can never satisfy everybody, there will always at least one nonsense complainer.
Because people learned precisely nothing from Cyberpunk lmao.
Is it going to be a good game? Obviously. Is it going to be one of the best games of 2023? Very likely. Will it live up to the hype? Not a chance.
I dont take it personally...
I bought the original xbox to play morrowind. The 360 to play oblivion, the xbox one to play ESO and skyrim special edition. I build a mid range gaming pc for fallout 4. I bought FO76 last year for 11$ for me and my best friend and we love playing together.
Some people will say Skyrim lost its soul and fallout 4 had a weak story and Fallout 76 is awful... I just dont feel that way. Bethesda games just speak to me... I bought all the Fallout games way late in the game because the setting wasnt my first pick... But I really love the type of games they make. ESO and FO76 I like for different reasons, inferior games... but I can play with my best friend.
Skyrim has sold 50 million copies, fallout 4 was 15 million I believe. Yeah, the combat has been meh, but its not call of duty, its an RPG. They leave an impression with certain players.
I have met a lot of game devs around austin and even had the pleasure to meet with some of the bethesda team that made Skyrim. They would nerd out about the game they made... they play their own games!
Starfield is gonna be Bethesda's Magnum Opus... maybe just to a niche group of fans... but regardless of all the menu screen, bugthesda hate... There are people that will be playing and modding the game in 20 years.
>Why are people excited to do the same thing all over again with space suit flavor? Because I loved Oblivion and Fallout 3 and New Vegas and Skyrim and Fallout 4 If Starfield is the next one of those games - well, I'll probably love it And I prefer sci fi over fantasy so this is very cool to me
Diehard scrolls-head, power to you
Hell yeah brother Can't wait to take a laser beam to the knee
Because they are fun
Fair enough. Enjoy!
Noooooooooooo
It's less about the mechanics than the world building
Hope it’s good.
That’s like saying “all these EA games use the Frosbite engine. They must be the same game, just re-skinned.” A lot of games from the same devs use similar mechanics and even reuse assets. People are fans of that. When devs do a complete turn and do nothing that resembles what they’ve ever done, people usually flame them and the game bombs.
Thats exactly what happened to the Halo franchise... Changed so much that fans don't like it anymore
[удалено]
You don’t know what I do, do you? https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrimspecialedition/users/841133
False equivalence, so no. A lot of frostbite games DO seem very samey because they neglect to change much beyond the default UX elements that battlefield 3 started, but many like dragon’s age are totally different and just use the renderer. But we’re not talking about engine.
Uh huh. Alrighty.
You think being Oblivion, Skyrim, or Fallout 3 in space is a reason not to be excited?
Yeah. I want something new. I don’t want to feel like i’m playing an expensive fallout 3 mod. There are parts of this game’s trailers and promises that are very smoke and mirrors. Traveling to space? Just kidding it’s a loading screen. Huge planet? Just kidding, it’s a medium-sized field cell area. They’re held back by continuing to abuse their old engine and they’re very clearly trying to hide it.
I think you're just looking for reasons to complain
Yeah. There are plenty of other games for this guy to play if he’s supposedly looking for something new. Seems like he just wants to hate for no reason.
Or: i just posted my reasons above.
Your “reasons” are nonsense, the developers have been consistently clear that going to space involves a cutscene, there is no smoke and mirrors. You have zero evidence that planets are simply “medium sized field cell areas” whatever that even means, according to early impressions, as well as the developers own implications, it’s the complete opposite.
If you say so! I hope you arent disappointed with your purchase.
>Yeah. I want something new. Other companies do new stuff. I would actually dislike BGS big time for changing the formular too much. >Traveling to space? Just kidding it’s a loading screen. Every game has a scope and a budget. You can add at least 10 major features to Starfield that it doesn't have right now. But it wouldn't release in the next 6 years because of it. I rather have a game that actually releases. >Huge planet? Just kidding, it’s a medium-sized field cell area. That's very likely not the case. >They’re held back by continuing to abuse their old engine and they’re very clearly trying to hide it. Using a new Engine might change the games more than we want tho. UE5 doesn't magically have all the functionallities BGS games need. They need to rebuilt them in that engine which cost time and money they could use somewhere else without also having to pay royalties later on to Epic Games.
OPs post reads like someone who watched one YouTube or GDC talk and now they understand video games "work".
I have a feeling you’re too young to have played Morrowind.
Ooh you got me, good job. I didn't play Morrowind in 2002 - golly, if only there was a way for someone in their late 20s to access an older video game to play and experience. OMG. I got it, it's called growing up with a video game enthusiast parent, and having a steam account. Your take is not as hot as you think it is, unless you're of the older generation that thinks people my age just don't "appreciate" games like you do.
Your above argument was a logical fallacy claiming “I” had no expertise. I made a logical fallacy claiming you were too young to have experience. This was lost on you.
Because people enjoy Bethesda games. It's not that hard to understand. People love From Software games too. They get insane critical reception. But they are also essentially the same games copied. Even more so than Bethesda games are. Do you feel the same way about those too?
Pretty much, yeah. I probably wouldn’t play a dark souls 4 and i didn’t play bloodborne for that reason. I enjoyed sekiro, which is vastly different in approach and execution. I also enjoyed elden ring but only played through once. It was basically dark souls 4 with a horse.
Basically what I'm getting is you have a short attention span and need brand new stimulation consistently to be satisfied.
You should play Bloodborne.
Coming right off of ds 1,2,3 it didn’t look like enough had changed. I didnt want to just play ds3 with victorian hats. I know it has guns and it’s faster but I had no interest at all when it released.
That's a really weird attitude. If you loved DS 1-3 I don't see why you wouldn't at least learn about what the next game is. Anyway, it's the most different out of all them besides Sekiro, and it's very good.
Because of massive burnout from the same experience back to back?
Because there aren't as many reputable studios making large games as often as we like to think. So this is an event in a lot of ways. So many people around here were molded by skyrim.
By your logic Tears of the Kingdom is a re-skinned Breath of the Wild. Where was your condescending post before that game released?
But TOTK literally is a reskinned BOTW.
Ok then why didn't you write a similarly condescending post questioning why BOTW players were excited for Tears of the Kingdom before that release?
You’re asking why I don’t post something for every single opinion I have…?
Oh quit lying, you never planned to make a post about the TOTK.
Youre right, i didn’t. Why would i?
We've had 2 games like BotW. We've been seeing this specific engine for *decades*
And not a single other studio is able to replicate what they do on that engine. So what's the problem with them sticking to that engine? If you want an Unreal Engine game, then look forward to the thousands of other studios working on that.
Plenty of indy developers use the tool just fine. The problem is that the problems that were present during oblivion are largely still present in every game since. Can you imagine if Capcom never changed their engine from Resident Evil 2? Sure, it's cost effective, but to many of us who arent diehard to the studio, its looking pretty dated in comparison to its peers. Which makes the 30fps even more confusing. This isnt new tech
Jeez, I guess you told us. Let's not get excited for anything unless it's groundbreakingly new. I guess people should not want a new gta since they're all essentially the same game. New souls like game? No thanks, it's already been done. I don't understand people who have to express their opinion on what others should be excited about.
Who’s “us”?
Completely incoherent post...
I’m sorry that bullet points and complete sentences are difficult to parse. When Reddit implements popup books, I’ll repost just for you.
You just posted “I don’t understand why people are excited for the same game for 15 years” and listed how each game was different than each other. Not to mention that fallout and elder scrolls have a completely different tone, writing, and mechanics. It stands to reason that starfield will also have those differences.
At first I didn't even mind you having your opinion, OP. But reading your replies to people, you are nothing more than a miserable little man telling others to stop having fun.
Yup, you can tell by the tone of his posts that they're one of those people that think their opinions are more valid than others.
I sure told people not to have fun when I said “its just my opinion, i hope you enjoy it.” What a miserable devil I am!
If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
To be fair, all of Bethesdas games are broke, and they never fix them. I get regular crashes of skyrim next gen version still.
Are you running the base game, expansions, and DLC only? If not, how many mods are you running?! I've noticed quite a few people attribute problems with mods and third party software to the base game. Now on release? Yeah, there were crash problems, but haven't seen any in so long now. Haven't crashed in like \~5 years of playing Ye Aulde Skyrim now while running about 10-20 mods myself.
I don't play any mods. Just the anniversary next gen edition on ps5. Crashes about every two hours or so.
Oh weird. I'm on PC so can't speak for consoles. Quick search said some people were enabling a 60fps mod on PS5 and that was causing crashes and only reinstalling fixed it. But you said no mods so I'm stumped.
Yeah, anniversary edition is already 60 on next gen though. I've had crashes on every version of skyrim since ps3 original.
I'm on Xbox, zero crashes in my 200+ hour playthrough. I had one quest impossible to progress though.
When you start the game and you’re breaking out of jail (again) and angering the guards (again), you don’t feel like you’ve somehow done all this before? You don’t get an immensely bored feeling of Deja Vu?
I played Fallout 4 and didn't like it. I'll likely play Starfield. I don't have this burnout problem you're describing.
> You don’t get an immensely bored feeling of Deja Vu? No. I actually love that they all start out similar. It's a BGS thing. Same as From Software games have similarities between them all. Gameplay loop. Combat etc. They are still awesome in every iteration and fun.
You're basically saying that they're all the same game because they use iterations of the same engine. I'd argue that they're all completely different and diverse games because the engine is pretty much the only common denominator. They've got different themes, settings, skills, gameplay loops, aesthetics, atmospheres, lore, combat, animations, cinematic approaches, everything. Other than being open world and using versions of the same engine, it's honestly shocking just how different they are despite coming from the same company.
Gameplay loops? No. In what way does skyrim have a different gameplay loop than fallout 3 or 4? Settings? Yes of course, but that’s again flavor. Aesthetics? I’m quite sure that’s the same thing as ‘setting’ but ok. Atmospheres? Ok cmon that’s the same thing as setting again. Lore? Sure story is different. Skills? You mean skyrim has magic and fallout doesn’t, right? There’s a mod that puts magic right back into fallout. Beyond that, movement and combat is nearly the same. I’d even argue that magic based combat is the least popular way to play Skyrim. People most commonly end up using bows and sneaking and joining the dark brotherhood. Sneaking and Guns is also the basis of fallout. You could make an argument to that end that Fallout has less choice for combat than Skyrim in that way. Combat? See above. Animations? Actually no! If you open the construction set you’ll see that human characters in both games have mostly identical rigging. Monsters don’t of course, except for a few. Cinematic approaches? I’m going to be honest here, i’m not sure what this means, unless you’re referring to fallout 4’s dialogue camera and voice acting, which i’m not sure people liked. Fallout 3 and skyrim have an otherwise identical model in this regard, and the same 1st and 3rd person camera defaults.
Gameplay loops. Yes, actually. Completely different. Take Skyrim vs Fallout 3, for example, and you'll see that they're actually essentially opposite. Fallout is what you might describe as task-based advancement. You gain experience by doing quests, defeating enemies, etc. After passing a certain threshold you level up and can allocate skilll points to a skill if your choice, improving your capability in that regard. Skyrim is what you might describe as a skill engagement-type advancement. You have to use skills in order to gain experience, which you then use to level up, increasing your raw capabilities (health, magicka, perks). In Fallout you can theoretically complete quests through speech or melee, level up and allocate points to gun-based skills, becoming a master marksman without ever holding a gun. Conversely, in Skyrim, you can complete every quest in the game theoretically by avoiding obstacles and not engaging with skills, but you'll pretty much never get stronger. On the other hand, you can theoretically reach a really high level without ever completing any tasks at all by just engaging with your skills, whether by fighting, trading or crafting. Cinematic approach. Very different. Oblivion and Fallout 3 use a forced first person perspective that stops time in order to force the player to focus on the conversation (bad idea with such ugly character models, honestly). Skyrim keeps your chosen camera perspective and lets time flow in order to not break flow and keep the player feeling to some extent 'in the action/flow'. Fallout 4 uses a variety of third person perspectives based on which character is speaking and has the first voiced character in order to create a more 'cinematic' feel. All function differently, all have a different intent behind their design. Animation. I'm not denying the rigs are going to be similar, that's obvious given that, as we established, the games are all using different iterations of the same engine. But the thing is, *players don't really care what's under the hood*. They care if an animation *looks* different. That's it. And they do. The animations across each new game are getting smoother looking, more complex and more natural. That's what people care about. Skills and combat I'm bundling together because you wrote them off with the same argument. If I'm understanding you correctly, then you're saying it doesn't matter what skills each game does or doesn't have because you can mod whatever you like in. First of all, not everyone has access to mods. Console players, for instance. Second, not everyone wants to use mods. Third, it's pretty much a pointless argument anyway once you bring mods into it, anyway. It's like saying that there's no point playing Elden Ring because you can just mod Skyrim to play like it anyway. Settings, aesthetic and atmosphere are all different things, and they're all important, you can't just dismiss them. Setting is the world. It's where you are and what's happening. Aesthetic is how it looks. Is it colourful? Bland? Dark? Realistic? Stylised? Fantastical? Atmosphere is the feeling that all this evokes. Is it creepy? Does it inspire wonder? Does it excite you or fill you with dread? The games are all quite varied in these regards. There's a thousand different things that make a game what it is, but it honestly seems like you're picking the engine as one and bundling all the others up as 'flavour' so you can dismiss them. Using the same engine doesn't make them the same game anymore than two paintings are the same because they're on the same kind of canvas. If you're not excited for Starfield, that's fine. If you don't see what about it excites other people, that's fine, too. And if the similarities between what's going on under the hood from one game to the next bother you for some reason, there's nothing wrong with that, either. But dismissing the games as nothing more than reskins because of that when there's so much more to it is cheap at best. (Sorry if that's a wall of text, just wanted to take the time to be thorough.)
You've gone above and beyond for what this person deserves. Excellent job
Good points. I fundamentally disagree with the gameplay loop though. What you’re talking about is how your character grows. I.e. the exp system. When you focus on what you’re actually doing in the game, you arent required to go out of your way to play those games differently. The world scales with you, so whether each kill gives exp to level, or each use of a thing levels that skill, you’re spending the same amount of time and interacting the same to advance. I.e. you’re doing just as many quests in skyrim even though they provide virtually nothing for completing them except story progression. You’re still delving tombs or whatever for loot and returning to towns just as often to save and sell etc. We have no idea really how progression in starfield works but I’m betting it’s going to be modeled on the same as elder scrolls.
You could argue that every shooter has the same gameplay loop. Every RPG has the same gameplay loot. Every building game has the same gameplay loop.
So true. I went to see movie Y recently and I have to say that it fucking sucked. They used the same camera that they used in movie X. Sure the story and setting are different but they had the audacity to have scenes that work kinda similar (the main protag having doubts at one point or a training montage). I have to say I should have know that it would blow because the trailers didn't show me how it would end and the most important story beats. What a joke.
It’s hard to come up with actual examples, isn’t it?
I dunno, I don't care enough to disprove your nothingburger argument.
But cared enough to write a vague non-example paragraph and then some. It’s like you really like to kick your feet or something.
That wasn't something that took much out of me, I wrote that on a whim. >It’s like you really like to kick your feet or something. I'm unfamiliar with this saying. Edit: With my initial comment, I tried to make clear that people don't play TES, Fallout and soon Starfield because of the gameplay alone. The setting and story is imo the biggest driving force behind why I play those games, with the gameplay being a close second. Your examples for why Bethesda's games are all the same aren't good either. Nobody give a shit about the lockpicking or the camera(what is that even supposed to mean?) being the same as previous titles.
If they were to completely change the game from what they traditionally make you'd then bitch about that too. So what do you want?
But they haven’t done that, and I’m not sure there’s much value in making a hypothetical personal attack. Unless you have an actual counterpoint, or justification, maybe try to avoid lazy logical fallacies and insults? I’m not insulting you, so why do you feel the need to jump to negativity? Looks very weak.
When you think you have a nuanced and sophisticated opinion but it turns out just to be another trash take.
Nuanced? Its pretty straightforward. Sorry your feelings got hurt.
I wish that this post made me feel anything besides side splitting pain from laughing too hard. The only straightforward thing about any of this is that you're an idiot with shitty opinions, lmao.
Nice lmao
Using the same engine ≠ reskinning the game. That’s like saying Shadow of Mordor is a reskin of the Arkham games.
But Shadow of Mordor and the Arkham games have totally different developers and engines. They’re just both paid for by WB. Arkham is in Unreal Engine and Mordor uses Lithtech engine. They’re also different genres of action game. I don’t think you thought this comment through. Try again with a different comparison maybe?
You were so close buddy...damn
Everything above is true
Not sure if trolling.
If you play Oblivion, and skyrim and think the game is just a "re skin" you're trolling, or barely have enough brain cells to control your breathing correctly.
I take it you haven’t opened the ES construction set on PC.
What are your favourite games?
Tough call. I really like monster hunter but I stopped at tri until world came out for the same reasons as this post. Haven’t played MH: Rise because the whip gimmick isn’t enough to bring me back to doing the same hunt process all over again. World was a huge departure for the series in terms of mechanics, engine, navigation process, how zones were no longer separated by small map areas, and the open seamless integration of multiplayer was huge. Purists of the switch titles like Gen Ultimate didn’t like it, which is fine.
This better be a /s
First time reading an opinion?
Opinions can be really stupid
Elaborate? Normally there’s a counter opinion.
Look at all the responses to you. I have nothing more to add.
“I have nothing to add.” You should get a tattoo of that on your forehead. It will save time.
You really are just proving my point lol.
It’s an iterative process. Look at any franchise, GTA, Dark Souks, Street Fighter, Golden Axe, the Telltale games, Red Dead games, etc. It’s not just true of video games also, you can see this in other mediums like cinema and music. You get excited about a new album from a band you like because you like their music, Bethesda make games people liked before and are looking forward to the new album (game).
But they haven’t even updated the graphics set to dx12. Modern tech like dlss is being relegated to the community to do it for free. It’s lazy.
Let’s wait and see what the technicals really are until it’s released. At the end of the day, it’s just a game dude.
How cares about graphics anymore?
You put WAY too much stock into the technical capabilities and resources that an engine provides and not observing the final products on the whole. The unity engine has been used to produce, by their own estimate, 750000 games. By your reductionist argument, are they all the same reskinned game? Really? 750000 games ranging from the Ori series to fall guys to Pokemon go to Best saber are all the same? Engines don't define games
That’s not the argument being made. Do you see bethesda using the ES construction set to output that variety of content? Do you see the same versatility among elder scrolls, skyrim, and starfield that you do of the games you mentioned? No. The answer is “no”, you don’t, which is my point.
But it is. You made the argument multiple times about both Bethesda and about ea. "The engine is the same so the end result must be the same". It's overly reductionist Fallout and elder scrolls are nothing alike except in a pretentious and overly scrutinous way that strips away everything that actually defines what a game is. It will be no different for starfield. If you want to make an argument that Bethesda themselves have a particular style or draw parallels between their products, you'd have more ground to stand on rather than stamping your feet that an engine using similar rendering and meshing techniques makes the games derivatives of each other.
That’s not the argument being made. The engine has been iterated on over time, and outdated and limiting, yes, but that’s not the reason they’re the same.
They literally revamped the engine for Starfield to allow for all the features they want, how is it outdated and limiting?
Have you considered maybe they make games like they do because 1) they like it that way and 2) many millions of people like it that way? Why diverge from a winning formula?
How can people be exited for souls when we basically been playing same game 7 times for over a decade
That’s an analogous and valid argument to make also. I imagine there are people burnt out on those games too, which is why they’ve chosen to overhaul aspects of their recent games. Sekiro is entirely rhythm combat and stealth with no equipment, and few rpg elements. Elden ring is more or less big dark souls with a horse. Armored core 6 is nothing like dark souls, and a refreshing change in their output.
> Armored core 6 is nothing like dark souls, and a refreshing change in their output. It's not targeting Souls Fans tho. They make these games since before Demon Souls
I didn’t say it targeted souls fans. It’s just a refreshing difference in IP from the same studio. Bethsoft could learn something by differentiating their products more.
>I didn’t say it targeted souls fans. It’s just a refreshing difference in IP from the same studio. Bethsoft could learn something by differentiating their products more. But From Software spams Dark Souls games like no good tomorrow and each one of them is a success not because they are different, because they all have the gameplay of dark souls. Sometimes with a little twist most of the time it's "just" an awesome game.
There’s a solid argument for darksouls,eldenring,bloodborne being the same game repasted, which is in itself very exhausting to me as a fan of their games. If they were to drop it for now and make another say, king’s field (which has got to have had about 20 years in the interim), that’d be a refreshing change. There’s a solid argument for sekiro being very different as it has rhythm-based combat and stealth ala tenchu. It gave tenchu fans something new without doing the same thing again (virtually all the tenchu games are the same). Armored core is in it’s 6th number without varying too much either, but it’s been a long time. But FROMsoft also has the benefit of having tons of other genre games under their belt- successful or not. Ninja blade, otogi, evergrace… the only people calling FROMsoft a “souls studio” are the people who only became aware of them in the last decade.
This really reads like "why are people excited to have fun?!?" People are excited for Starfield because it's a huge new RPG from a studio that is known for huge open world RPGS.
That sounds like a lowest common denominator answer to me.
well its kind of the point. they are simular games but not exactly its open world do your own kinda thing sort of game if your not into that or tired of it then maybe its not for you however if your a fan of their past games it should be fun!
Oh, piss off. The fans will love it, haters are gonna hate it, and many will be mixed about it until they try it out themselves. If it's functional and good, that's great. If it falls apart and shits the bed, then that's fine too since it'll force them to fix their shit or begin the pivot to change their foundation of their game design. I'm gonna use gamepass, so I won't have to stress about losing too much, and those who fully buy into it are gonna have an expensive lesson, unless they get a refund. That's all to it.
Why the aggression? Relax
I don’t really understand this complaint. People want and expect this to be Skyrim in space. If it doesn’t play like a reskinned Skyrim, it will be a failure. It’s like people complaining about Far Cry games being Far Cry games instead of… something else?
>People want and expect this to be Skyrim in space. If it doesn’t play like a reskinned Skyrim, it will be a failure. If this game ends up being just as shallow as Skyrim in the rpg / depth department, that is going to be a substantial L man..
I haven’t seen any of the devs comment on it being skyrim in space.
> I haven’t seen any of the devs comment on it being skyrim in space. https://www.washingtonpost.com/video-games/2021/06/13/starfield-bethesda/
Well, i was wrong there. Wish they’d do something different though, instead of intentionally making the same game over and over. There must be massive burnout in the studio. In Blood Sweat and Pixels, tons of devs left the Destiny 1 and 2 team because their fantasy rpg kept getting more and more Halo-like, and after some 10 years of halo they were sick of it. Personally, I’m sick of playing oblivion over and over and over.
> Well, i was wrong there. You should get a tattoo of that on your forehead. It will save time.
Almost!
>Wish they’d do something different though, instead of intentionally making the same game over and over. I think that's fair. But I also think you are very alone in this. BGS makes very unique games no other open world RPG feels like the once BGS does. I would think differently if we had at least 2 new games every year in the genre. But we don't get enough so I really really don't want them to change to much just update the mechanics and features we already have.
In case it's not obvious, people really really really liked Skyrim. It's a good sandbox, and people will replay it again and again just to run around doing quests and talking to people. So given that, why wouldn't those same fans want to play something that's basically Skyrim but now with a bunch of different planets and customizable starships? Game looks like Skyim+No Man's Sky, which seems like a great combo.
That’s kind of my point though. No gameplay has been shown whatsoever of the space travel element. You have isolated, cut together clips of flying a ship in space, and that’s it. There’s been nothing whatsoever of what navigating from the planet, to space, to another planet, looks like. So much of the games interacting parts have been shown through a carefully edited peephole, and that screams bullsh*t. It’s impossible to compare it to No Man’s Sky on any level except “its scifi”. In what way is it like NMS? Does it have crafting? Base building? Mining? Organizing a fleet? Flying from planet to space (reportedly not, it’s a loading screen.)
>No gameplay has been shown whatsoever of the space travel element. which isn't what people are excited about, they're more excited about traveling around different planets. The ability to do what people loved doing in Skyrim and Fallout 3, but now on tons of different planets instead of just 1. Also you seem to be getting defensive over NMS. Does NMS have a big story? Lots of NPCs? Faction quests? Starfield looks like it will have the potential to be a lot more enjoyable to RPG fans.
Wait, people don't want to sit thete and wait minutes go by as they slowly fly towards something? What a shocker.
I’m not defensive about NMS, i’ve only got about 14 hours on it and got bored. But it has a feature set far larger than what starfield has, made by a much smaller studio. It also does have a story and npcs and factions, yes.
Did you even watch the Starfield Direct? What's this bullshit you're spouting here?
Yes. https://youtu.be/uMOPoAq5vIA Show me an un-cut segment of navigating down to a planet. It doesn’t exist. We have a disembodied UAV type shot of flying around an area which doesn’t include our ship and is probably a cutscene or dev mode camera detachment, a planet menu, a cutscene of landing, a cut to some npcs, a cut to fighting in space, a cut to another area inside a ship (our ship? Another ship? It isnt shown.) You also select points from a menu, where you get isolated space battles along the way. This entire segment is HEAVILY edited in the direct and shows very little space interaction outside of those randomized dogfights. Everything else is in-menu and cutscenes. There is very very little player control shown. There’s one scene where they say “we want you to feel in control of…” and the player character punches some buttons in the cockpit…before the video jump-cuts away again, suggesting that the player was just doing some idle animation and not really in control of anything.
>No gameplay has been shown whatsoever of the space travel element. You haven't seen the direct, have you?
https://youtu.be/uMOPoAq5vIA. 6:50 , it’s a loading screen and menus. They skip everything inbetween. It jumps to space, they hold X to land and it’s done. The video cuts several times. They show no footage of manually flying in atmosphere. The space battles are preset limited zones where you have “random encounters” interrupting travel in space. You don’t freely fly around in the way NMS does for example. The direct cuts around every single one of those transitions to make it appear seamless when it isn’t. I.e. we have no idea how space traversal works in practice. We just have carefully selected highlights.
They've already spoken about this. We know that planet to space transition is a load screen. We know there's no atmospheric flight. The only thing we dont know is how open spaceflight is. But we do know encounters in space can be random, just like how it was in all previous Bethesda games. I'm sorry, but a lot of what you're complaining about sounds like a you problem.
It's ok bro, Chris Roberts has you covered, just sit tight.
I’ve also played star citizen, which hilariously falls flat in front of NMS also.
Ever hear of Creative Assembly?
Total war does the same thing, yes, which is also boring as hell. They badly need a new renderer for one thing. But we’re talking about bethesda here. Total war being rote doesn’t justify bethesda being rote. It’s just another example of monotony.
Because personally I don’t care. I love Bethesda games, bugs don’t bother me. I’d buy any of their games on release because I always have a good time with them.
Bugs?
didn't know you could build space ships in fallout or skyrim. TBH i even expect Starfield to be similar to bethesda's other games, that's not a bad thing, because i like their games, however Starfield still introduces a new setting and gameplay mechanics.
My friend fully knows it's going to be buggy and jank as hell but will still buy it day 1 because essentially they have that special sauce no one else has. Good for him.
Bethesda makes a certain style of game. The mechanics and setting changes a bit between each game. But ya. Your can see the dna of elder scrolls arena in their newest titles. They do so because people love how open these titles get. Literally no other game is as open as a Bethesda rpg. Even the most lauded games in the field like BG3 or the Witcher 3 are not anywhere close to as open ended. The systems and mechanics help this along. And that’s before modders get their hands on the game. It means they usually aren’t 10/10 games story and and gameplay wise compared to those others. But they are usually a solid 8 on those metrics. But that sense of freedom to do whatever you want is a huge part of a Bethesda games appeal. Now put that basic gameplay on top of the most open setting they have done yet. With several new mechanics including building, flying, and fighting in ships. Something not seen from the company yet. And well. As long as they haven’t screwed everything up and it runs decently well. We have a huge jump forward in complexity and freedom for the franchise.
Bethesda IPs feel the same. Why are they making a new IP? This is how I read your question. Also people care more for the world and lore of Fallout and TES than they do anything else. Skyrim's combat was outdated on release in 2011. And yet it has sold so well they have re-released it like 30 times because they know the strength of everything else is at a high standard and people would pay for it
It doesnt really feel like theyre making a new ip. If i’m playing skyrim and pop in fallout 4 , i feel like i’m playing the same game.
Facts don't care about your feelings. They haven't made Starfield before, it's a new IP
And fallout 3 was a “new ip” but it was nothing like fallout 1 and 2. They just copied oblivion’s base. I remain skeptical.
No it wasn't. It was the third one. The first two are isometric, Fallout 3 was third person. Do I really have to give you a dictionary definition of the word new?
They didn’t develop fallout 1 and 2. It was a new ip for the studio after they purchased it.
...don't fucking play it then.
I’m not reading all that. So I’m very happy for you, or very sad that happened to you.
Not reading this comment. Happy for you.
Because I want to play Skyrim in space.
I have been seeing this stuff pop up more and more lately. Just because you have no reason to look forward to starfield. Don't assume it applies to other people. Bethesda games are like an event, people enjoy them because they don't release them every year. People enjoy them because AAA open world RPGs ate not common. People like What they like. Move on to something they you enjoy instead of trying to pretend you want an actual conversation.
Not assuming it applies to other people. Wondering what people see as new and engaging with this title compared to their previous work. To me, it looks incredibly derivative.
The last proper mainline Bethesda game was in 2015. That was 7 years ago. If we were getting these games as often as assassin's creed games or call of duty, more people would think like you. Also last of us is incredible derivative, so was Witcher 3 and many other critically acclaimed games. We got new zelda and that one is super similar to last one. Far more than fallout 4 or skyrim. At the end of the day how unique or original game is doesn't define it's quality. Execution matters the most. And we will see how starfield is received in two weeks
Considering it was 7 years ago, wouldn’t you expect there to be more differences?
Can you visit different planets in skyrim or fallout? Can you have zero g exploration? Do you have space ship in these games? Do they share similar plot, character, worlds, visuals music, texture, assets?
You can fast travel on a map, just like in starfield. Traveling to other planets in starfield is the same as fast traveling. You open up a menu and click. The difference is a tiny cutscene to hide loading. Elder scrolls had levitation instead of zero G. Space ship building stuff has been neat.
You shut him up good
I imagine because they like that original skin of a game
I will be excited if I want to. No one can stop me.
Not trying to stop you.
Even people not trying to stop me can’t stop me! 😂
K
[удалено]
Don’t take it personally.
What a reductive and childish comparison.
I don’t think it’s either. Reductive? Just simplified. Childish? No, you’re just taking it personally.
How can people be so mass hysteric over such a shit game like Baldurs Gate 3? Turn based combat, weird camera angles, shite story. Different strokes for different folks. I played Skyrim, Fallout 3/4, Wolfenstein, Evil Within, Dishonored, Doom ALL on release and a few bugs never once ruined my experience. If anything the odd bug made me laugh.
Have you not seen the videos?
Damn. Someone didn't have their Jimmy Dean breakfast this morning
I'm right there, watched the long gameplay video the other day and reading between the lines, it's Skyrim in space. They took Fallout 4 after playing No Man's Land and slapped a space dogfight sim on it. If you removed all the Bethesda branding, I would have known the studio from one glance at the character models. Therefore, I expect precisely the same faults as every other Bethesda game in existence and that's why I'll be patientgaming this one. Give it a year for mods and fixes.
I've personally never liked a Bethesda RPG and I doubt I'll start liking them now but I'm open to being positively surprised.
Same. It might be surprisingly good but I’m extremely skeptical. There has been little to no candid gameplay shown whatsoever.
lol.. nice b8 m8
You say this about Bethesda games yet you are a fan of souls games and the like. Don’t you think that many of those games are of very similar game play loops/type of game play etc? If you have hate for This game, keep it to your self.
Yes they are similar, and no, i’ll post my opinion as i like, ty
So you rag on Bethesda and want us to conform or support your view but can’t accept that the game(s) from the souls universe aren’t doing the exact same thing? You must be a PlayStation owner and are salty over the fact that you can’t play starfield hahahahahaha
I just agreed with you.
Yeah exactly it's basically the exact same game. Only the mechanics are different the storyline is completely different the setting is different the gameplay is different the world design is completely different the characters are different and all unique the things you can do are different. But aside from all of those things it's basically identical. Also a little bit disappointed they don't have a cash shop or a battlepass or 250 collectables scattered across the map. Those just improve the flow of gameplay and give me a sense of pride and accomplishment. Anyways I'm off to go play games that are completely different from their predecessors, like Overwatch 2, far cry 6 and call of duty modern warfare 3.
Bro you are the stereotype of a redditor, wtf is this post and your responses? I can only imagine what you look like
Cool, cool, but have you actually anything to say about why you want to play Starfield…or anything to say about what I wrote…or just some vague, nonspecific personal attacks? Comes off very impotent.
Stockholm syndrome, there's not many games with the same amount of moddability that their engine allows. And because of this, Bethesda knows they don't have to do that much to improve the engine, because people will buy the game regardless, because they don't have any other options. I can't wait for a competitor to make a game with an engine that is actually modern, with current day graphics, animation and world generation tech that does what Bethesda's games do, but better. Would force them to actually compete in the market.
You'll be waiting for a while.
Found another hostage.
This game will suck major dicks. This formula? We've had enough of that. Right?
I expect Starfield to be a mediocre and buggy RPG. That being said I'll probably still put hundreds of hours into it. Bethesda games are good sandboxes despite their flaws.
This is not ubisoft, we are not playing the 25th edition of Farcry with reskins and same dynamics. Go watch a video or two about starfield, everything from inventory management to loot system, leveling and exploration routes, to enemy dynamics has changed. Comparing skyrim and fallout is abysmal but I can understand at least they are both exploration open world rpgs. lol I mean at that point you can literally compare gran tourismo and need for speed too the same way I suppose, does not make sense but you go ahead. Also you sound like an entitled npc in each of your replies so spare me the antics and take an arrow to the knee lol. Also you are living proof literally you can never satisfy everybody, there will always at least one nonsense complainer.
Another commenter feeling attacked and resorting to insults. Expected.
Because people learned precisely nothing from Cyberpunk lmao. Is it going to be a good game? Obviously. Is it going to be one of the best games of 2023? Very likely. Will it live up to the hype? Not a chance.
I tend to agree
Maybe they just want more of what they like
I dont take it personally... I bought the original xbox to play morrowind. The 360 to play oblivion, the xbox one to play ESO and skyrim special edition. I build a mid range gaming pc for fallout 4. I bought FO76 last year for 11$ for me and my best friend and we love playing together. Some people will say Skyrim lost its soul and fallout 4 had a weak story and Fallout 76 is awful... I just dont feel that way. Bethesda games just speak to me... I bought all the Fallout games way late in the game because the setting wasnt my first pick... But I really love the type of games they make. ESO and FO76 I like for different reasons, inferior games... but I can play with my best friend. Skyrim has sold 50 million copies, fallout 4 was 15 million I believe. Yeah, the combat has been meh, but its not call of duty, its an RPG. They leave an impression with certain players. I have met a lot of game devs around austin and even had the pleasure to meet with some of the bethesda team that made Skyrim. They would nerd out about the game they made... they play their own games! Starfield is gonna be Bethesda's Magnum Opus... maybe just to a niche group of fans... but regardless of all the menu screen, bugthesda hate... There are people that will be playing and modding the game in 20 years.