They need to add the mod support so we can remove all the copy & paste bs. If a planet has nothing but copy & paste content, it needs to be removed. Can't do that until mods are supported on Xbox. I am tired of seeing the same outpost 30xs just in hopes that I see something new.
There’s a reason Bethesda’s become a giant in gaming. They have a specific storytelling, game design and world building that’s unique to them.
Sure, other games may have better designed worlds, but something about Bethesda games just makes them unreplacable(?). There’s also the fact that they’re the only xbox games with an actual modding community and some really in depth mods.
There’s a reason Bethesda’s become a giant in gaming.
Yes, their old masterpieces.
They have a specific storytelling
Being honest, their storytelling feels very outdated by now, even old trilogies like Mass Effect and Bioshock had a storytelling that has aged far better; not to mention TW3, RDR2 and just recently Baldur's Gate 3.
something about Bethesda games just makes them unreplaceable(?)
Actually, my first Bethesda game was Fallout 4 in like 2018ish and I couldn’t get into their older works(NV and older) because of how dated they were for me.
But, Starfield captures exactly what drew me to Fo4 and Skyrim when I first played them.
fallout 3 and new vegas are goated so it really sucks you can't get into them but if the fo3 remastered rumors are true that could be sick. for old and new players
I never played a Bethesda game before this year. Somehow, even without nostalgia playing a role I really enjoyed Starfield! Once again begging, pleading, extremely online gamers to realize that their subjective tastes are just that and not a reflection of a game’s objective quality.
Admittedly — and I genuinely mean no disrespect — you not having played any Bethesda games means you don’t have a point of reference for their style and don’t have experience with some of the best open-world RPG games ever made. A la, you don’t necessarily have enough experience with the genre at large to be annoyed at long term fans.
Starfield, like Hogwarts Legacy, is geared more towards casual, inexperienced gamers — which creates a more shallow, simplified, or washed out experience. It’s why both of those games are good, but they’re not great.
Starfield deserved to be a masterpiece, and it falls well short. It’s disappointing.
You’re allowed to! I love it too, honestly. Erhm, at least, I will once mods fix it.
But it doesn’t change the fact that it is a relatively shallow story experience with very hit-or-miss game mechanics, relatively stale design, and somewhat poor graphics for a new release.
Comparing it to other Bethesda games, the Mass Effect trilogy (!!), the old Star Wars KOTOR series, RDR1/2, Cyberpunk 2077, the Witcher series, etc makes this plain to see from an objective analysis.
I do still enjoy the game, but it fell well short of what it could or should have been. It’s simply a solid 7/10. And that’s disappointing.
I don't agree with you, because those games set out to accomplish very different things from Starfield. I won't rag on RDR1/2, CP2077 etc. for being grim, gritty universes that make me feel sad and fearful of life. I prefer the hopeful and optimistic universe of Starfield. I also don't think Starfield's gameplay is shallow at all, at least, not in the ways that matter to me.
That’s exactly what I keep saying. Except I’m begging people to realize it’s a mediocre game with lazy world building, lazy writing, dated janky game systems, poor performance, and stapled on features.
People are allowed to enjoy it and love it. But that doesn’t make it an objectively good game.
I could write paragraph after paragraph about why it’s a mediocre game that does not in any category stack up against its modern competition.
It feels like a game from 10 years ago. It is objectively bad. But you are still allowed to love it. No one is stopping you from having fun.
Ok. But when you make claims on your own subjective experience I am compelled to. The only category that Starfield excels in is # of lines of dialogue.
I’m begging people to realize it’s a mediocre game
And we beg you to realize it is a fantastic game most people really enjoy playing.
It is objectively bad.
85% of critics & 70% of Steam users recommend it - and that's with like, one patch and no mod tools. Looks like it is closer to "objectively good" by most metrics.
Alright, I'll bite. In your subjective opinion, what makes an objectively good game? Graphics? Frame rate? Gameplay loop you enjoy? Edgy topics? Heartfelt topics? Sales metrics? What is an objectively good game, and why are you the one who can say what an objectively good game is?
You seem pretty bitter against a company that you deem outdated and unvaluable.
Why the argumentative response to someone liking something that you don't?
Honestly, why try to convince someone to not like something that you don't consider worthwhile in the first place. Your words say Bethesda is obsolete and worthless, the time you put into crafting this says the opposite.
I've never met a group of people as fucking weird as the starfield fanboys. Every criticism of the game is some awful personal attack on them designed 'to stop them enjoying it'
PEOPLE ARE ALLOWED TO DISLIKE THINGS AND THEY HAVE HAVE THE RIGHT TO EXPRESS AN OPINION ABOUT THEM.
I honestly don't get it, do you people think if you shut down all the criticism about the game it will suddenly be actually good or something? Like a tree falling in the woods type situation?
Starfield is a bigger better game than Fallout New Vegas. Just because it’s not your favorite game, doesn’t mean those of us who grew up playing BGS games and loving them can’t appreciate what this game is and what it will eventually be with mods.
I think you want to argue there are better games but that’s dumb it’s just your opinion.
Imo New Vegas is neat but it’s just too dated for my tastes, especially with no mods. It’d might as well be a point and click shooter with how slow the player crawls back and forth and how the guns don’t even feel like guns
zoomer take, just because it's dated doesn't mean that it didn't do all of the things starfield does but a long time ago. the point we're making is that the fact that the only thing starfield has going for it is that it's more recent is really telling
to an extent I can understand that if you're just approaching it from the modern gameplay experience perspective but to say that the game is too dated is a bit ignorant because it was basically revolutionary in the gaming industry at the time. Obviously games that come out after and improve the experience even more are going to "feel" better.
If you want to get that modern experience out of the older fallout games you could mod them I guess, but they had a lot of charm during they hay day
I’d love to mod them but they don’t have official support. Once I finish paying for college, a high end PC is on my list so that I can experience Bethesda’s older titles in all their glory though
I’ve seen mods for NV and such that actually makes it look more modern or enjoyable, so I’m looking forward to finally getting to the story without the older gameplay
And also- I’m not trying to say the games are bad, my point was that although they were revolutionary, you can’t exactly just say “Stop playing Starfield and just hop on NV” simply because of how different and aged the game is.
Ironically though, I appreciated the slight amount of mature themes that’s only present in older RPG’s like NV. Stuff like the hookers sitting around at the strip or Benny hitting on me really makes it feel like a bit more of a lived in post apoc city with real people as opposed to Starfield’s more sterile, flawed utopia vibe with zero feminine outfits and not even having a perk that specifically targets the opposite sex, like in every Fallout game.
I hate to say it, but all games these days seem to get saved by huge content patches. It’s the norm now.
One way to look at it is “the game is unfinished! Rage! No one should be allowed to play until it until I think it’s a finished product!!”
Another way is to play it in its vanilla form and then see what kinds of amazing things get implemented down the road as the devs (or in this games case the modders as well) really get into it.
Take cyberpunk for example. I heard it was rough on launch so I skipped it. Once 1.5 released I took a flyer on it (half off) and it was amazing. Guy I worked with did the same thing but at 2.0. He probably had it even better tbh.
We could both have bought it on launch and been enraged, but doing so would just be us saying we don’t want anyone else to play until it’s up to our standards.
How is that fair? People can play whenever they want. Just because you can’t wait doesn’t mean someone else should have to.
Patches from the developer aren't the same thing as user created mods. There have been good mods since day one, but nobody considered it fixed until Cyberpunk 2.0 was officially released by CDPR. Considering most games don’t even have mod support and consoles rarely ever do either, you can only objectively judge a game by the vanilla experience. That’s what the developers actually created, sold you, and intended it to be.
The potential of mods fixing or making it better at some unknown time in the future is a bad argument for Starfield being a great game.
New Vegas is old. The world isn’t as big. The gameplay isn’t as clean. I get that you like NV more. I used to LOVE new Vegas but yikes change. If Starfield had released as the game it is now at the same time as new nvegas people would have had their minds blown.
Don’t let nostalgia fool you. The things that have changed in that time are not insignificant.
I think Starfield is the perfect example of how no game can meet expectations anymore. There was no reason to think Starfield was going to be anything more than what it is. It’s an open world space BGS RPG.
Like, what did you think you were going to get? This is exactly what any rational person expected.
baldurs gate 3 met expectations, alan wake 2 met expectations, hell lots of games have, starfield is not one of them and the bar really wasnt very high for bethesda and they still tripped over it, people didnt expect some genre defining game from them like morrowind and skyrim but they did expect it not to be a soulless husk filled with copy pasted content on dead empty worlds
BG3 had bugs that made NPC’s say dialogue options that spoiled parts of the game you hadn’t even been to yet. That’s kind of a big deal.
If you don’t like Starfield, that’s fine. I don’t like BG3 to even buy it (not because of the bugs, I think all that stuff is forgivable), but why you get to say one is objectively good and one is objectively had is weird.
BG3 did better than expected so it’s cult following serves to protect it from criticism. BGS is so successful everything they make gets a microscope on it.
BotW was a way more believable experience on a character level than Skyrim. Skyrim was like watching Chuck-E-Cheese animatronics have a love-child with Monty Python and the Holy Grail.
Does BotW allow full customization of the protagonist, numerous completely unique builds, countless quests, official mod support, and a bunch of customizable companions with their own stories?
On top of that, is Botw on any platform besides switch?
It doesn't need to offer that because that's not a requirement of a game to be good. And if your role in a game is to play a certain character, then customization is inherently contrary to the story.
Games don't need mods to be good. Customizable companions aren't critical to every kind of game, and aren't necessary for telling a story.
A game doesn't need to be on every fucking platform to be good. Also, Starfield is only on PC and XBox, so how is that even an argument?
BotW was designed to be played on custom hardware for which it was MADE.
It blows my mind that people like you aren't clamoring for authors to only make "Choose Your Own Adventure" novels.
Art doesn't exist to CATER TO YOU. Not every game needs to be open-world, character customizable, moddable, bullshit. If you want that level of customization, learn fucking game development.
I never said it’s objectively good or bad. My point is that Bethesda games cater to me, just like how Zelda caters to you, dipshit.
You’re the one saying BOTW is better in every way than Skyrim while I was just saying that it has a unique feeling that no other game can replicate.
Edit: The entire point of my fucking argument is that I get why people don’t like Bethesda games but I personally love them and understand why they’re so big in the RPG genre.
Let me guess what you’re gonna say- Because Bethesda makes incomplete games and banks on the passion of their mod community to finish the games for them?
Personally, I don’t really care as mods are fun. I play video games to wind down and forget about my troubles and last time I checked, no other game allows me to do damn near whatever I want with whatever copyrighted franchise I want as much as Bethesda’s mods do.
Do you know any other games that allows you to have stormtroopers fighting elites while you’re listening to 30’s jazz and running around with the dildo sword from Saints Row and wearing a Warhammer Space marine suit?
Storytelling is utter shit. Gameplay is as bland as it comes and world building is copy pasted and you will preorder whatever garbage they release. You people are into cbt
There isn’t anything to fit the Bethesda style open world
Starfield doesn't fit it either what are you on about lol, 90% of Bethesda games have proper handcrafted words and are better in almost every way than starfield outside of graphics and combat
Me saying something is objectively worse in some ways doesn't ruin anything for anyone, if it did then they clearly didn't enjoy it themselves, grow up, its called criticism
subjectively worse. as in its your opinion. grow up, and learn that what you believe is not universally held to be important. also maybe get a dictionary.
No, there are objectively things starfield did worse, its not just "my opinion" that some old bethesda games followers that had their own worldview and weren't carbon cutouts and almost identical beliefs wise. It's not my opinion that there are less handcrafted locations that make for far more generic level exploration, and that's just scratching the surface. You're one of those people who'd say mouldy bread is only "subjectively bad", some people like it!
bethesda dickriders are the both tiresome people on the internet, like a billion dollar company needs their boots licked and every mistake defended by hordes of fanboys no matter what. Starfield does a lot of things worse than Skyrim, no debate, its provable., it's like saying a sandwich with cheese is more boring than a fancy one, its just an observation
if someone doesnt like eggplant most people just accept that and move on instead of trying to convince them that they would like eggplant more if they ate a lot of it.
It’s always sad watching fanboys act like this. It’s apparent that they have none of their own accomplishments and hope to bask in some of Larian’s reflected glory as if liking the game is some kind of feat. Like in college football when fans of mid SEC teams try doing the SEC chant in out of conference games. Like yeah, it’s a great conference/game. But you had nothing to do with that.
It really is absurd with BG3, too. A game that is really good but Reddit has overhyped it to such an extreme level that even though I like it (not love it) I feel like I have to be contrarian just because. It's not a perfect game by any means.
This is why gamers get a bad rep. It's insane how many people in this thread would rather die on their hill than accept someone else might prefer Starfield over Baldur's Gate 3 or whatever other game the zeitgeist considers to be its darling.
Starfield doesn't make you do a 2d20+6 or whatever to figure out what ability to use and thats the greater point. Sure you are using the random number generator with your 86% accurate rifle but what you know is that its 86% likely to hit the pixel your crosshair is on and damn near 100% likely to hit one very close to it for the number printed on the box.
The way the user perceives the random system matters to the feel of the game.
BG3 is not a rich open world…it’s not even an open world. It’s also point in click movement with turn-based combat. Not saying it’s bad, it just isn’t very comparable to a game like Starfield or open world ARPGs in general outside of it being an RPG.
Exactly, and the world has next to no interactivity, and if you think people are going nowhere in Starfield, well literally every NPC in BG3 is waiting for you to interact with them. It's a very different style of game.
Because modders are the kinds of people that are too lazy to do any actual work, and think game developers exist to do whatever they want. Gamers don't like being asked to "think".
144
u/[deleted] Nov 20 '23
They need to add the mod support so we can remove all the copy & paste bs. If a planet has nothing but copy & paste content, it needs to be removed. Can't do that until mods are supported on Xbox. I am tired of seeing the same outpost 30xs just in hopes that I see something new.