Sony’s ineptitude, Microsoft’s love of timed exclusives and Sony’s ineptitude again have completely pissed us off. - PSLS
David Pierce, better known as Chesko in the Skyrim modding community, is now a Senior Designer at Bethesda Game Studios currently working on the upcoming TES 6.
Despite being one of the most popular video game releases of the year, Starfield is already getting a lot of backlash in the four days since it has been out. The highly anticipated space RPG from Bethesda was finally launched into orbit on September 6, and naturally, the title has taken over the entire gaming galaxy, for better or worse. Leading up to its awaited release, the developer claimed that its latest title will be a “modder’s paradise.”
PC is an interesting place for modding and weird. Gamers have definitely made many games better by adding better textures, better character models, animation, adding features that weren't there or even creating new stories.
But it's also embarrassing that the companies that make the games couldn't be bothered to make the best damn games they can right out the gate. They are the ones that have the high budgets. Should be a given. Nope. It's gamers that have to show the way and how it's done.
Like I said, interesting and weird. If that's the case, these developers should be paying the gamers.
They don't. They don't even need to finidh it, or to make it work properly. They just need to hype it before launch and hope enough people will buy it. Rinse and repeat every year.
Modders are passionate artists and Bethesda abuses this. Like I said, they should make an RPG maker game, it would be less sleazy of them.
name it Bethesda Game maker and give us all the tools of ES I - V & Fallout 1 - 4. they can even give us New Vegas & starfield tools as a DLC. I'm telling you, they'd make billions.
Maybe the bulk of our money spent on games for PC should go to the modders. I mean, they release games that are not ready, and leave it to modders to fix them, and some like Starfield leave options out like HDR and DLSS. I'm losing respect for most PC developers lately.
Bethesda Softworks hasn't been a "PC developer" since Oblivion. They've half-assed ever since.
Turns out that a big, empty planet is the perfect environment in which you can contemplate your insignificance in a cold and uncaring universe.
Because everyone wants a barren wasteland with a 1km barrier when exploring a planet.
Let’s see…
You can’t continuously walk the circumference of a planet: you'll hit a boundary eventually
You can’t fly your ship anywhere on a planet: Landing and taking off are purely cutscenes, and there's no way to fly to a different region without returning to orbit first
You can’t run out of oxygen: You have an oxygen meter, but it's not real. "Oxygen" is just Endurance from Skyrim and Fallout 4. A sprint meter, essentially.
You can’t fly to every planet: Saturn for example, you can’t land and you must fly for hours to get closer in which eventually you’ll just clip through the planet as It’s basically a giant prop.
Absolutely! When the human race reached the Moon, it was filled with Disney parks and attractions.
When they reach Mars, it will be filled with 7 Star Hotels, 20 Eiffel Towers, 15 Big Ben's, and so on...
Both the Moon and Mars are lovely places to live.
Because in real life humans land on a planet with a cutscene and can only explore a 1km barrier.
Obviously he’s figuratively speaking when referring to Disney Land…🙄
@Jin_Sakai
Starfield is a game that's suppose to imitate real life, you explore... Lets say in the future you can take a ship and start visiting several unexplored planets. Not taking into account things like gravity, high/low temperatures, breathable air, etc, most of the planets you visit would be uninteresting, barren wolds.
There are other games out there where you can visit many worlds, each filled with lively colors, beautiful landscapes, lots of animals, and so many other things. Starfield isn't that game.
As for invisible walls, it's unfortunate, but like or not most games have invisible walls. Starfield is not the first game with invisible walls, and won't be the last. Played Baldur's Gate 3 last month, it had invisible walls. Played Uncharted 4 PC few months ago, it had invisible walls.
Wouldn't it be easier to just admit already that they made empty worlds just for marketing's sake, to fool idiots?
"MORE THAN ONE THOUSAND PLANETS TO EXPLORE!!!"
Not only you fell for it, you are fighting for it lol
Let’s be real here we play games to get away from reality. So yes give me less planets but all fully exportable and full of interesting content
@Jin_Sakai
Bethesda have been saying for ages that most planets from the game were barren and empty. You could visit the planets, but likely find nothing of interest there. If idiots weren't paying attention to Bethesda's words, then it's their own fault for believing something diferent.
Starfield is an RPG with some exploration elements, among other things. If you wanted Starfield to be essentially about exploration, you have the wrong game. So the question is... were you paying attention?
That's real life though. Starfield is a game so I would like to have a little fun with my $70 purchase. Speaking only on the topic of exploration in Starfield.
“Played Baldur's Gate 3 last month, it had invisible walls. Played Uncharted 4 PC few months ago, it had invisible walls.”
BG3 and Uncharted 4 devs never intimated that exploration was free roam. Todd Howard’s opening statement in the Starfield Direct suggested exactly that.
@mrxo
When someone like you relies on name calling to make a point, just shows off your ignorance, immaturity and lack of intelligence.
You know how other games handle this? You can fly around the planet and spot 'interesting points' and then land there, or else don't land. Its up to you. Its part of the mystery and exploration to be engaged in the seemlessness. What's it called...immersion? Something bethesda tossed away a long time ago
I think the point is that the game isn't a real life sinulator. It's a fantasy/sci-fi game that could have been more imaginative with its planets, landscapes, and lore behind those properties
It's definitely not a bad game but it's 100% underwhelming from expectations
"You can’t fly to every planet: Saturn for example, you can’t land and you must fly for hours to get closer in which eventually you’ll just clip through the planet as It’s basically a giant prop."
Isn't Saturn just a planet made of gas? So I don't think it has an actual surface you can land on and big gas planets like like that usually crushes whatever ever object penetrates the atmosphere because of the insane pressure.
It is but that fact that it’s just a prop you can clip through and not even 3d rendered is ridiculous.
I've not played it so I am basing this purely on what you've said - it sounds like it wasn't really intended that the players would visit Saturn so I can understand that decision. Having said that, our you'd think the planets in Sol would have had more effort put into them.
Not my words but I agree “Don’t talk science landing on gas planets but be okay with your character becoming super human with space magic.”
Nothing in this game is possible it’s all fake we can’t make spaceships, we can’t fly to other planets, we don’t have these make believe guns and suits. It’s a game you should be able to land on ALL types of planets if you have the right ‘make believe’ equipment. Stop being a hypocrite.
@Jin_Sakai
Apparently it is a 3D object with a low resolution image plastered on top of it. Nothing remotely difficult to render at all especially on Xbox Series PS5 consoles and modern PCs.
The uproar about the barrier is dumb. I have played it and the area you can walk in is huge i wasted hours exploring it without hitting the boundary. You can easily return to your ship and just fly to another spot on the planet to walk past the boundary. Who cares if you can't walk across an entire planet in one shot you can still explore the entire planet and logically it wouldn't make sense to walk to the other side of a planet and leave your ship behind.
I do agree it sucks you can't fly on the planet but i never expected that from the marketing. I do wish there were vehicles like Mass Effect but i figure that was more for balancing as it's still a Bethesda game at it's core and they probably want you to fight the enemies and not use a vehicle to run them over. Like in Mass effect there was no reason to get out of the vehicle unless it was to pick up an item or enter a building since you could easily kill everyone outside.
I also agree the Oxygen meter is mislabeled but why would we want an actual oxygen tank meter in a game like this? You complain about not being able to walk the entire planet in one go but if they used an actual Oxygen meter you would constantly have to return to the ship to refill the tanks anyway.
As for Saturn it's a gas planet there is literally no solid matter there that's why you can't fly there. I am still early on but as far as i know only it's only the gas planets you can't fly to because that makes sense.
If i had to make some complaints about Starfield it would be about the broken HDR. The way the game doesn't explain or tell you about a lot of abilities/features like the location of the storage on your ship or how you can charge the cutter to do more damage or mine metals way faster. Hell it didn't even tell me i had a scanner i walked around for a long time on Kreet looking for the location for my quest before i clicked the scanner button by accident and found it showed a route to the quest, could highlight items, reveal unknown markers, and fast travel.
No, you can't explore the full planets. You can explore some zones of a planet.
In No Man Sky, you can explore full planets.
Instead of making a very cool looking Starmap, they could've had a list:
Galaxy A:
Planet A:
Location A, B, C
Planet B:
Location A, B, C
Etc, because that's how limited the exploration is.
It's genuinely hard to take your criticisms seriously when you complain about not being able to land on Saturn, a planet made of gas. From what I understand the only planets you can't land on are exactly that, gas giants. Which makes sense.
So why bother making it then? Seems like it's just a ploy to be able to say big worlds
I like how Forespoken (and other games) got spam comments about having an empty world even though it was explained in the game.
But for Starfield it is justified because it's in space?
I guess i shouldn't be surprised about hypocrisy here...it all depends on what system it's on here.
Funny thing is Forspoken world wasn't empty lol. 🤷🏾 There was an agenda with that game.
Lol. Agenda?
Where was this agenda for FF XVI, God of War, deathloop, returnal, R&C, Horizon, Miles morales, TLOU2, FFVII remake, GOT.
You guys really need to get a grip.
This willl be a modding heaven gooing forward - and everybody said it was pure stupid to have 1000 planets - but the game is bigger than any bethesda game anyway in regard to the handcrafted planets - the rest is just extra and somthing that can be eveolved over time.
But hey i guess when you can not have something it has to be shit on. As for Forespoken is was a bad game pure and simple and the empty part was not the reason.
No Man's Sky got absolutely destroyed their false promises. A team of 17 people.
Bethesda gets a pass though apparently.
Even at launch NMS has much more advanced flying mechanics than Starfield, and obviously that game has improved leaps and bounds since then. I already prefer Starfield's on foot segments though.
And Starfield even has the team at DF supporting it! 30fps, all the loadings, lots of broken promises and all...
Thus far the Vita has been horribly under utlized. The launch was meh, and the past 5 months have been like the past few years for the PSP -- next to nothing. When is Sony going to learn that SOFTWARE sells hardware. People aren't just going to buy it because it's awesome and plays youtube videos.
I agree with Seb about the exclusives, though I also agree with Cam that sometimes the smaller titles need the publishing support that exclusivity brings to be able to publish the game at all. The DLC exclusives are stupid though.
Sony's piss poor decisions never cease to amaze me.
Nothing but another stupid rant.A mostly unintelligible rant just like the ones people went on with the PS3. The constant crying about the VITA is getting tiresome. Sony is making more games for it and we have seen many of those games. Crying about it isn't going to make it happen any faster.Sony gave us a ton of games at launch better then the crappy launch Nintendo gave us with the 3DS, where their best game was a remake of a game we haven't played in decades, and as usual Sony people just tossed it back in their face and demanded more. The VITA just needs people who appreciate what they are getting with it. Disagree with me all you like Sony people complain more then anyone else not because more things are being done to them it's just that they complain the most.
@ doctorstrange what's the difference if you have them now or you have them later? What difference does it make if they are available now or they are spread out? They gave you a lot of them at launch and they are available now. So how would spreading them out be better? It would just be more complaining about how few games we got.
Vita advertising (and PlayStation advertising in general) is the most confusing to me. It's really bad, everyone says it's really bad and low sales show it's really bad. But Sony seems to have not gotten the memo...
It's a real shame, because overall they have the best games.
*looks at clicking on editorial*
*looks down*
*continues to play Sound Shapes*