Starfield from Bethesda - coming 11/11/22

[Syt]

I'm wary of the "1000 planets, land anywhere" thing. I wonder how much procedural generation is in this. And how many planet are actually worth checking out or are just lifeless rocks of various shades of grey to brown. I also assume that "civilized" planets will be a hub you visit, but without the rest of the world to explore.

The opening it with the shooting was a bt ... weird as gameplay selection. That looked generic as heck shooting. Not a good way to sell me on this.

[garbon]

I don't get why they would highlight such a high number of worlds. Clearly many/most have to be procedurally generated which will make them less captivating.

edit: Just saw your latest comment, Syt.

[Tamas]

I'm wary of the "1000 planets, land anywhere" thing. I wonder how much procedural generation is in this. And how many planet are actually worth checking out or are just lifeless rocks of various shades of grey to brown. I also assume that "civilized" planets will be a hub you visit, but without the rest of the world to explore.

The opening it with the shooting was a bt ... weird as gameplay selection. That looked generic as heck shooting. Not a good way to sell me on this.

Yeah pretty much. I am probably going to check it out no matter what because  it's Bethesda, but it looked like a Mass Effect mod made in the Fallout 4 engine (just better graphics maybe)

[FunkMonk]

I'll play it when it goes on MS Game Pass. Not paying 60 bucks for it.

[CountDeMoney]

After reading Kokatu's piece last week on how Fallout 76 turned Bethesda into the Killing Fields, I for one look forward to seeing the bodies pile up in the ZeniMax parking lot.

[viper37]

"It's like 'Skyrim' in space."

That's how Bethesda Game Studios Executive Producer Todd Howard described the upcoming game "Starfield" in an exclusive video interview with The Washington Post. 

It means it is filled with buggy and incomplete quests, but highly moddable so unpaid volunteers can finish the work of Bethesde as it runs out of money to complete it before it releases some special edition?

Or does he mean you randomly roam everywhere on the map doing some stuff that does not seem to impact what you believe is the true finale of the game, the civil war between two similar factions, but instead simply prepares for the final fight with some flying beasts?

Hmm.  Not sure I'm buying this on release.

[Syt]

I'm wary of the "1000 planets, land anywhere" thing. I wonder how much procedural generation is in this. And how many planet are actually worth checking out or are just lifeless rocks of various shades of grey to brown.

RPS has a similar take.

https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/bethesda-could-have-shown-us-anything-with-starfield-and-they-chose-grey-rocks-again

[...]

Now, keep in mind that this game is set in outer space, the vast expanse and wonders of which we cannot ken. You could do any cool, awe-inspiring thing you want with space. Crystal waterfalls that flow backwards into the sky. Aurora borealis-like lights but so low down they whip along at ground level. Deserts of hot-pink dust sprouting deep blue rock spires. Destiny 2 has some cool planets, for example. Imagine my confusion, then, when the footage of Bethesda's brand new IP made it look like they've accidentally done Fallout or Elder Scrolls again.

[...]

At the end of the video Howard says that you can land on and explore the planets in Starfield wherever on the surface you want, and that there are over a thousand of them. In a brief montage of other planet vistas there were some more interesting ones - some different coloured rocks, some big crystals, a few palm trees. It's not like each one of those thousand planets is going to be meticulously authored by a team - at least, I hope they're not.

So being honest, watching that video, and listening to the dark voice of experience that lurks in your brain... How many of those 1000 planets do you reckon are mostly grey rocks?

[Solmyr]

Gopher talked about the gameplay reveal too: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upE6O70ehOo

[Syt]

PC Gamer's reaction in their "Biggest Disappointments of E3" was that it's "No Man's Sky, but ugly." Hard to argue with that. When I saw the bit where the demo player was mining ore with a laser early on, I was immediately reminded of that game and kept seeing parallels after my mind was primed accordingly.

[Syt]

After giving BG3 97% (the highest score in their magazine's history), PC Gamer give Starfield 75%:

https://www.pcgamer.com/starfield-review/

It's Bethesda's biggest RPG by far, but nowhere near its best.

[...]

What's really missing in Starfield's planetary exploration is what happens in other Bethesda RPGs: You head out toward your destination and get completely distracted along the way: meeting an NPC, hearing a nearby dispute, stumbling onto a new quest, and never quite getting the place you intended to without finding in a half-dozen new things to add to your to-do list. You get some of that in Starfield's cities, and occasionally you'll pick up a signal or be hailed by another ship when entering the orbit of a planet, but not while exploring the surface of a planet itself.

One saving grace to the act of cutsceneing across the galaxy is that Starfield's spaceships are cool, stylish inside and out, and often surprisingly huge. I only wish I had more reason to spend real time inside my ship. When crossing the galaxy just takes a few clicks of a mouse, it doesn't make sense to hang out in my ship's interior, with all its compartments and modules and ladders (yes, Bethesda finally got ladders working).

The only really good use of my ship—and one of the best parts of Starfield altogether—is disabling an enemy ship in orbit without destroying it completely, and then boarding it. Then you get to stalk through the enemy ship, compartment by compartment, level by level, engaging in close-quarters combat with scores of enemies and sometimes even automated defenses. It's a rush, with each ship feeling like a deadly, tightly-designed maze, with the bonus being that if you like the ship you've raided you can add it to your fleet.

[...]

After all the hype and hope and anticipation, I'm disappointed to say I don't love Starfield the way I love other Bethesda RPGs. It's similar in a lot of ways, but Starfield never feels as instantly engrossing and transporting as Oblivion or Skyrim or as wild and weird as the Fallout games.

It comes close on occasion: one settlement on a far-flung planet is right up there with the most entertaining Vault-Tec experiments of all time. But more often the promising premises I found in remote bases or mysterious space stations tended to fizzle out. Starfield's alien bugs, even the truly monstrous ones, don't hold a candle to Skyrim's menagerie of beasts, faction quests never match the intrigue and brilliance of Oblivion's guild quests, and though Starfield's "spacers" and Fallout's raiders probably share the same basic code (attack player on sight) they just don't have as much personality.

So, I don't love Starfield, but I'm happy to say that I do like it. Those first 90 hours I played were far from perfect, but I've got plenty of reasons to play 90 more.

[garbon]

If modders can go wild...

[FunkMonk]

Seems like Bethesda has actually nailed it. I'm surprised.

[Caliga]

I'll definitely get it eventually, but will have to be after I beat BG3.  Plus by then Bethesda will have fixed many of the bugs.

[Grey Fox]

I think in the end I might play it. Probably when I buy a Series X for Christmas.

[Josquius]

I've got a big list of RPGs before I get onto this.