Starfield Pre-Release Thread [GAME RELEASED, GO TO NEW THREAD]

[ItsChon]

Got to love all the retards that were actually excited for this game. The sooner people realize that RPGs are incompatible with action/shooter combat, the better. The very things that make a shooter or a hack and slash action game fun are mutually exclusive with what makes a RPG combat system fun.

 

[Vic]

there are 100x less trannies in Starfield than in BG3

Starfield is as woke as previous Bethesda games with the exception of asking for pronouns in character creation, but nowadays you have to have that. But it should be easy to remove that with a mod.

Thanks, but I'll take a game with good gameplay and a few trannies over a game with garbage gameplay.

it’s FPS looter shooter gameplay

The issue here is that Bethesda made a game different from their previous releases.

Starfield is not like Elder Scrolls or Fallout, it’s a completely different category so you either like it or hate it

 

[Vic]

A tip for all who wanna play Starfield:

Play at least until the mission “Into the Unknown” then come back and post here fucktards

Of the three missions Sarah offers after her intro mission, I only concluded saving Barrett - which she suggests you should do first.

I suggest doing the other 2 and then the follow up Into the Unknown. “trust me bro”

 

[Trithne]

an epic weapon and other shit.

how many times I gotta say Starfield is a looter shooter with MMO-type colored gear (white, blue, purple, orange)

I know it is. That doesn't make it acceptable.

I guess it's just continuing a trend Bethesda started in FO4. All the games prior, a weapon had fixed stats based on what it was. FO4 introduced legendaries, I dunno about FO76 but I assume it added rarity, this is just more decline

It's arcade nonsense. It barely even makes sense in the context of an arcade game, it makes less sense when applied to mass produced guns with no magical properties, and even less sense in a good RPG.

 

[Vic]

an epic weapon and other shit.

how many times I gotta say Starfield is a looter shooter with MMO-type colored gear (white, blue, purple, orange)

I know it is. That doesn't make it acceptable.

I guess it's just continuing a trend Bethesda started in FO4. All the games prior, a weapon had fixed stats based on what it was. FO4 introduced legendaries, I dunno about FO76 but I assume it added rarity, this is just more decline

It's arcade nonsense. It barely even makes sense in the context of an arcade game, it makes less sense when applied to mass produced guns with no magical properties, and even less sense in a good RPG.

Looter Shooter

Looter shooter (also called loot shooter) is a subgenre of shooter video games that features role-playing elements and procedurally generatedweapons and equipment. A main goal of games in the genre is obtaining better items through grindingfor random drops, typically with rarities ranging from common to legendary.[1] While it saw its genesis in the 2007 Hellgate: London, it was not popularized until the release of Borderlands in 2009. The genre went on to encompass some of the most successful AAA games on the market. It is common for looter shooters to be games as a service, but this model emphasizes that players ignore other games, and can lead to player burnout.[2]

 

[Eisenheinrich]

just more retarded hater criticism

Bro, never go full Grauken!

 

[Trithne]

RPG is when numbers and the more numbers there are the more RP the G is.

And I still don't see your point. It's a lootemup, and? That makes it immune to half-hearted criticism where I post a gif on a niche forum because i think lootemups are shit games?

 

[Vic]

RPG is when numbers and the more numbers there are the more RP the G is.

And I still don't see your point. It's a lootemup, and? That makes it immune to half-hearted criticism where I post a gif on a niche forum because i think lootemups are shit games?

I'm just explaining what type of gameplay starfield has because a lot of people here don't seem to get it. No, I wouldn't call starfield an RPG. It's a looter shooter with RPG elements, but it's not a pure looter shooter either because Bethesda stitched together a bunch of systems.

 

[Non-Edgy Gamer]

Got to love all the retards that were actually excited for this game. The sooner people realize that RPGs are incompatible with action/shooter combat, the better. The very things that make a shooter or a hack and slash action game fun are mutually exclusive with what makes a RPG combat system fun.

I agree, at least when talking about skills affecting damage output or accuracy. This despite really enjoying Deus Ex. There are other RPG elements you could add, but the whole shooting at bullet sponge gameplay isn't really great, yeah.

 

[Vic]

The sooner people realize that RPGs are incompatible with action/shooter combat, the better. The very things that make a shooter or a hack and slash action game fun are mutually exclusive with what makes a RPG combat system fun.

absolutely agree

 

[Vic]

considering restarting the game fresh now that I have a better understanding of it.

It seems there is a common consensus that the early hours of the game are shit, so you guys all whining after the first few hours seems to be how everybody feels, and that the game gets better and better the more you play and discover. Personally I don't get it, the moment I started exploring Kreet I already knew what kind of game it was.

I do think Starfield is Todd Howard's magnum opus.

 

[Lord of Riva]

considering restarting the game fresh now that I have a better understanding of it.

It seems there is a common consensus that the early hours of the game are shit, so you guys all whining after the first few hours seems to be how everybody feels, and that the game gets better and better the more you play and discover. Personally I don't get it, the moment I started exploring Kreet I already knew what kind of game it was.

I do think Starfield is Todd Howard's magnum opus.

ahh the classic "the first 50 hours are shit, get better after that" argument. Must always be at least an amount of time that makes a game unrefundable for some reason.

Must be a great experience.

 

[Vic]

and people are already starting to fix the UI

 

[Vic]

I've mentioned it before, that while I much prefer an isometric view for the artistic freedom that it provides, a first/third-person RPG can work. Panning up to an isometric camera once combat is initiated is one option as in Archaeland, or even something like the first person view in Space Hulk: Tactics could work, though the fact that models are snapped onto a grid does suck. The only thing is that if you want to have a system like this, it's very important you do not have too many encounters as the constant panning up to an isometric camera and/or stopping your exploration and movement even if you're staying in first person, would likely detract from the pros of having a first-person view in an RPG, namely immersion.

Every single one of Bethesda's games, yes including Morrowind, have had complete dogshit gameplay, and oftentimes the worlds themselves are very poorly done with towns/cities being way too close together and underpopulated, so you cannot even use the "muh immersion" argument to defend their quality. For some reason FO:NV is a favorite here on the 'Dex and I still don't know why. The combat is horrible, the world looks like shit, the lack of NPCs is jarring and the few NPCs that are around behave like robots, and though there are some great world building moments/locations, it's not enough to salvage a poor experience. One can argue that Morrowind has an interesting art direction and a world (though the aforementioned flaws ruin the world for me) to make up for the horrible gameplay, but all-in-all, it's a horrible catalogue.

Why did you delete your post, bro?

 

[ColaWerewolf]

considering restarting the game fresh now that I have a better understanding of it.

It seems there is a common consensus that the early hours of the game are shit, so you guys all whining after the first few hours seems to be how everybody feels, and that the game gets better and better the more you play and discover. Personally I don't get it, the moment I started exploring Kreet I already knew what kind of game it was.

I do think Starfield is Todd Howard's magnum opus.

Unless there's mods that require a fresh save, there's no real reason to restart.

Spoiler

Game has a New Game+ option at the end of MQ if you want it

 

[AwesomeButton]

The sooner people realize that RPGs are incompatible with action/shooter combat, the better. The very things that make a shooter or a hack and slash action game fun are mutually exclusive with what makes a RPG combat system fun.

absolutely agree

How do you try to integrate firearms (lasers) in a first-person RPG then?

1. Make enemies bullet sponges. Then go by the "numbers go up" mantra, better weapons overcome the sponge faster. -- This sucks as system design.
2. "The pseudo-simulationist approach". Make firearms very inaccurate, very prone to breaking, add wepon condition statistic, gamify the "time to iron sights", time to reload, weight in the inventory, the recoil, rounds fired per second, etc. Make firearms suck and gradually improve them through crafting/wepon modification, or through the player finding innately better weapons in the world. This way you can have weapons that always kill or cripple from 1-2 shots, but getting to actually hit something is the skill the player can build up.
3. In addition to the stats from 2., add some player build choices that improve the same stats, i.e. a more skilled character can make more of the same weapon than an unskilled character.

IDK, this seems like a watertight way to integrate shooter combat into an RPG. Thoughts?

 

[ItsChon]

I've mentioned it before, that while I much prefer an isometric view for the artistic freedom that it provides, a first/third-person RPG can work. Panning up to an isometric camera once combat is initiated is one option as in Archaeland, or even something like the first person view in Space Hulk: Tactics could work, though the fact that models are snapped onto a grid does suck. The only thing is that if you want to have a system like this, it's very important you do not have too many encounters as the constant panning up to an isometric camera and/or stopping your exploration and movement even if you're staying in first person, would likely detract from the pros of having a first-person view in an RPG, namely immersion.

Every single one of Bethesda's games, yes including Morrowind, have had complete dogshit gameplay, and oftentimes the worlds themselves are very poorly done with towns/cities being way too close together and underpopulated, so you cannot even use the "muh immersion" argument to defend their quality. For some reason FO:NV is a favorite here on the 'Dex and I still don't know why. The combat is horrible, the world looks like shit, the lack of NPCs is jarring and the few NPCs that are around behave like robots, and though there are some great world building moments/locations, it's not enough to salvage a poor experience. One can argue that Morrowind has an interesting art direction and a world (though the aforementioned flaws ruin the world for me) to make up for the horrible gameplay, but all-in-all, it's a horrible catalogue.

Starfield was a golden opportunity for Bethesda in that the setting would have been perfect to mask the flaws that are inherent with their engine/games. Remote outposts on unique worlds would be the perfect excuse for only having twenty NPCs, and if there is only one "town"/outpost on a world, than you wouldn't have to worry about immersion breaking closeness. They could have really leaned into the mystery aspect to make for some amazing emergent gameplay. Imagine foraging for close to an hour on a harsh, inhospitable jungle world that's filled to the brim with fauna that wants to kill you, only to run into some sort of a native village, with strange alien creatures inhabiting it. The sense of wonder would be amazing and even if none of the other worlds had discoveries even as close to as interesting as that, it would still be enough to make exploring each planet extremely fun. You could even make it so finding the village is required to advance the main quest if the corporate devs couldn't bear adding content that people might miss. Throw in a few interesting dungeons/ruins on a few planets and maybe a pirate outpost with some C&C where you have the opportunity to turn them hostile or to be allowed in, and you'd have a game that is loads better than many of their previous titles, even with the cringe plot.

Oh well.

Why did you delete your post, bro?

Wanted to add more that was Starfield related.

 

[Vic]

considering restarting the game fresh now that I have a better understanding of it.

It seems there is a common consensus that the early hours of the game are shit, so you guys all whining after the first few hours seems to be how everybody feels, and that the game gets better and better the more you play and discover. Personally I don't get it, the moment I started exploring Kreet I already knew what kind of game it was.

I do think Starfield is Todd Howard's magnum opus.

Unless there's mods that require a fresh save, there's no real reason to restart.

Spoiler

Game has a New Game+ option at the end of MQ if you want it

Yeah, but I feel like I wanna start over fresh and see what I might've missed. It's really layers upon layers, man!

 

[AwesomeButton]

and people are already starting to fix the UI

Give me the link. I have no time and I must mod.

 

[Mebrilia the Viera Queen]

It seems to have generated some spicy reactions.

what a bitch made niggerfaggot cry baby.

Screeeching repressed homos noises. XD

Edit: Also
https://twitter.com/TheActMan_YT/status/1698578728752980039

 

[Vic]

How do you try to integrate firearms (lasers) in a first-person RPG then?

My stance is that the more player skill a game requires, the less RPG it is. Basically the prowess of your character should be determined by his stats, not by your agility. In Starfield, and in the 3D Fallouts, you have popamole shooting combat that is greatly dependent on your reflexes. Even if it has gear that increases the characters damage and defense, it's still largely dependent on your FPS skills.

Give me the link. I have no time and I must mod.

I just saw this on reddit, don't think the guy released it yet, but there might be something on the nexus already. I think UI mods will be the first mods to hit the scene.

 

[Vic]

15 hours to go until release

 

[Naraya]

considering restarting the game fresh now that I have a better understanding of it.

It seems there is a common consensus that the early hours of the game are shit, so you guys all whining after the first few hours seems to be how everybody feels, and that the game gets better and better the more you play and discover. Personally I don't get it, the moment I started exploring Kreet I already knew what kind of game it was.

I do think Starfield is Todd Howard's magnum opus.

ahh the classic "the first 50 hours are shit, get better after that" argument. Must always be at least an amount of time that makes a game unrefundable for some reason.

Must be a great experience.

Don't forget the "story is not terrible". Copium levels are off the charts.

 

[Grauken]

The sooner people realize that RPGs are incompatible with action/shooter combat, the better. The very things that make a shooter or a hack and slash action game fun are mutually exclusive with what makes a RPG combat system fun.

absolutely agree

How do you try to integrate firearms (lasers) in a first-person RPG then?

1. Make enemies bullet sponges. Then go by the "numbers go up" mantra, better weapons overcome the sponge faster. -- This sucks as system design.
2. "The pseudo-simulationist approach". Make firearms very inaccurate, very prone to breaking, add wepon condition statistic, gamify the "time to iron sights", time to reload, weight in the inventory, the recoil, rounds fired per second, etc. Make firearms suck and gradually improve them through crafting/wepon modification, or through the player finding innately better weapons in the world. This way you can have weapons that always kill or cripple from 1-2 shots, but getting to actually hit something is the skill the player can build up.
3. In addition to the stats from 2., add some player build choices that improve the same stats, i.e. a more skilled character can make more of the same weapon than an unskilled character.

IDK, this seems like a watertight way to integrate shooter combat into an RPG. Thoughts?

People usually hate the 2nd approach because it goes against their instincts. They might say they want a more realistic role-playing approach to shooter combat but when the game mechanics impede their manual FPS skills they usually get mad. Works to some degree in games, see Deux Ex, but usually is frowned upon by many players. Especially if you want to have more mass-appeal its a death knell

 

[S.H.O.D.A.N.]

Make firearms very inaccurate

Everything else from the list I can accept, but that one is a deal breaker for me. There's nothing worse than seeing the aiming reticule squarely over the target only for the shot to hit the cat in the apartment next door.

I think CP2077 is introducing some form of endurance bar for firearms in their next big patch, where you have perfect aim as long as you have some of that resource left and only start missing if you run out. That's a compromise between FPS and RPG mechanics I can stomach.