The worst thing a video game can do is be boring. Buggy games can be fun as you laugh at the absurdity of the physics. That was honestly one of the reasons I stuck with fallout 3, because I loved that you could turn someone supersonic with enough landmines. Even if the game crashes and you lose progress, you can’t lose the fun you had playing the game.
I recently replayed fallout 3 after starfield failed to scratch my Bethesda itch, and I realized how much more alive the world felt (and how much less often I saw a loading screen when doing quests).
I am going to make a fallout 3 mod that brings the starfield experience, you can now only fast travel and it adds two loading screens between every location. It will also remove every NPC that isn’t strictly quest related and make them immortal. It will also level the wasteland and replace it with a procedurally generated landscape with absolutely nothing to discover in it.
Don’t forget to replace the map view with a field of sparse blue dots floating in a sea of black.
I was very confused, when it was nominated in the steam awards for most innovative game. Made me a bit sad when people do not know what great games are out there that only cost 1/5 of a AAA borefest.
RDR2 was nominated this year for at least one category
It came out years ago, hasn’t been updated significantly, and the online component was abandoned. It’s a fine game but why the fuck was it in on the ballot for anything? There were a few games this year like that. So weird.
Yeah. Hogwarts legacy and EA football as game of the year is very weird aswell.
Guess there is some brigading in some corners of the internet going on. Or most of the people just have a one dimensional taste in games.
The New Game + was one of the most innovative mechanic that came out this year.
It isn’t the Game of the Year award.
How is ng+ innovative? Have you played many other games this year? Dave the diver, boneraiser Minions or Astrea have shown me more innovation in gameplay than any AAA game in years.
NG+ isn’t new, but NG+ as part of the normal play through was kinda different.
*New for Bethesda
Other games have had similar features for years.
Other games just replay the story with the same stats.
Starfield has (or at least tries) to depict different universes.
Example (Spoiler for Starfield):
spoiler
The Constelation is different each time you run a New Game +
-
You meet the non-starborn version of yourself. You can convince yourself to join your crew, and thus you mentor yourself. All other Constellation members are missing/dont exist.
-
Same as Above but all the other members are alive and well.
-
Multiple version of yourself hang out at Constellation, like a sort of Citadel in Rick and Morty
-
Andreja has gone evil, has taken over the Lodge, and wants to take down Constellation.
-
Walter Stroud is not benevolent with his money but instead uses it to control Constellation and sells you the artifacts for 100k each.
-
You meet the Hunter who has already killed all of Constellation. He gives you the artifacts.
-
Cora Coe has returned as a Starborn and wants to avenge her father’s death.
-
Evil You is there trying to kill everyone, a wounded Sarah fills you in.
-
Only kids are at Constellation, all the members are gone and there are kids in their place.
-
Another kid one where all the members are retired and slight changes to the one above.
-
Everyone is dead and only Vasco remains.
It is pretty innovative I think, although it could have been better executed.
-
its seems like most of those negitive reviews have 60+ hours, some of the top negitive reviews are 250+ hours. the standard for boring seems a little funny to me.
You play for a while because you feel like you should and really want to like it. Quest after quest you start to figure out that you don’t actually enjoy what you’re doing, and it takes a while to first figure out why, and then to break your addiction
Sunk cost. Some people got so hyped up for it, they felt like they had to like it. Turns out that’s not how it works and it’s just… Not a great game.
I mean, we see this kind of review all the time. It’s generally people that run out of things to do and start complaining that the game doesn’t have infinite content.
The art of countering a bad review:
Negative review at 2hrs (refunded)
-Hey, you barely even opened the game!
Negative review at 5hrs
-You can’t say that, you’re barely through the tutorial!
Negative review at 15hrs
-You just haven’t gotten to the good bits yet!
Negative review at 30hrs
-You rushed through it and missed all the good stuff!
Negative review at 60hrs
-Well if you played that long, it can’t have been bad!
and every positive review is a fanboy who licks the boots of the devs. there is no winning
Isn’t the comment I answered to doing the same though? Based entirely on whether it is positive or negative and the play time, they reached the conclusion that it was sunk cost fallacy.
My point was that user reviews are a mixed bag and people will leave negative reviews on games they enjoyed for whatever reason but I guess it didn’t come across very well.
Oh for sure, a lot of that too. But I’ve also noticed an overall essence of boredom and disappointment especially when compared to initial expectation, so it wouldn’t do to dismiss most criticism in this way. Bethesda really fed into the “big immersive universe 25 years in the making” thing and even, for example, emphasized the player’s ship in marketing, even though you hardly really fly the ship at all in-game. NPCs feel flat and buggy, most planets are largely empty, and most quests are just… Fetch quests.
I feel like, as with most Bethesda titles, mods are going to breathe new life into this one eventually.
I feel like Bethesda really missed the mark on what makes their games special.
You can see the improvement in quest design and writing with questlines like the crimson fleet but it’s missing the glue holding everything together, the fantastic open world map that’s always there and Starfield does not have.
I think mods are eventually going to make Starfield into another timeless classic but they’ve never felt necessary before, Skyrim took everyone by storm as soon as it came out.
I don’t even believe mods could save this game. The major things it lacks are also symptoms of the decrepit engine they keep using; such as the overall size of each individual zone of the game and why you have to load between ground, space, and star systems.
I would not be surprised if the space segments were considered interior cells, as they’re actually quite small and empty if you fly around to find the invisible walls.
Ikr. If I find a game not fun an hour in then I quit. The fuck these people have time for to play 60+ hours on a mid game
Sometimes you just stick with it to see how god awful it is, or just so you can beat it and wash your hands of it.
Having 100+ hours in it doesnt invalidate any criticism you have.
heres my rough story about how I did 100+ hours in it and why that doesnt make it good.
Yeah, I got bored at 360 hours. If course, I’d be bored with virtually everything after 360 hours, but some people must have higher expectations.
Seeing how some people put like 6000 hours into Skyrim they might have.
Bethesda games are games we usually can play thousands of hours over decades and still enjoy. We’re only holding them to the standards they set.
