577
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 07 Sep 2023
577 points (93.6% liked)
Gaming
19998 readers
106 users here now
Sub for any gaming related content!
Rules:
- 1: No spam or advertising. This basically means no linking to your own content on blogs, YouTube, Twitch, etc.
- 2: No bigotry or gatekeeping. This should be obvious, but neither of those things will be tolerated. This goes for linked content too; if the site has some heavy "anti-woke" energy, you probably shouldn't be posting it here.
- 3: No untagged game spoilers. If the game was recently released or not released at all yet, use the Spoiler tag (the little ⚠️ button) in the body text, and avoid typing spoilers in the title. It should also be avoided to openly talk about major story spoilers, even in old games.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
I really don't understand all the negative comments. It feels like a very fun game and I can't wait to play it again.
If your enjoying it then don't worry about the negative comments. Unlike some other space games you dont do much travel yourself, you fast travel everywhere which means seeing the same non-skippable cutscenes again and again, i fast travel to the system, then fast travel to the planet, then fast travel to the surface; then if i want to go elsewhere on the planet i have to fast travel back to orbit then back down to the planet. Its "fast travel:the video game" Given that similar games have managed to let you fly your ship from space down and around the planet for years now I dont why you cant in this, im constantly pulled out of playing for a loading screen
Not arguing with the crux of your argument here, but most fast traveling I've done is way more direct than that. New planet, sure there's a few stages, but anywhere you've been before you can pretty much fast travel to directly from anywhere.
How often are you just hopping between places you've already been?
As to the people saying you can fast travel back to cities, last time (which was about 5 mins ago) i went to go back to New Atlantis i had to faat travel to the system first before i could even select the city, but other times ive been able to directly select the landing spot and fast travel there from another system so I dunno.
I just went and did stuff in Sol, i fast travelled to the system, fast travelled to the city, ran to the bar close to the landing pad, ran back to the ship, fast travelled to orbit, fast travelled to Venus, killed 3 ships, interacted with satellite, fast travelled to staryard, fought a decent amount of people which was good, fast travelled to Neptune, short fight, board, kill 3 or 4 peeps, fast travel to lodge. Then fast travel to mining planet system, fast travel to planet, talk, fast travel to different system, fast travel to planet run to ship, no bad guys just a quick convo, then fast travel back to ship, fast travel to orbit, and now fast travel to different planet.
Also fuel auto refills after every jump just seems to mean more fast travelling if you need to go further
If your enjoying it then im happy for you not trying to detract, just sharing my experience, i just wish they pushed what could be done more
I think if there's a patrol scanning your cargo you have to hit the system before landing, otherwise you'd fast travel your way past contraband scans. I'm having a lot of fun in the game, I agree there's too much fast traveling though.
You can't because the engine is bad, and they need a lot of loading screens to connect the small-sized playable areas. Other Bethesda titles pull the same trick, but you don't realize it, because there's no loading screen. Instead it's doors that handle that (which is quick because rooms are small) and pre-loading of neighbouring grids when you are outdoors (which is why sometimes you'll see creatures popping out of thin air, or walking out from behind walls/trees/rocks to hide the popping.
Bethesda always advertises their "new engine", but really it's exactly the same engine they've been using since Morrowind, with minor logic improvements and updates to the graphical assets. It's to the point where a lot of bugs have ancestry trees.
Yep. Call it Gamebryo, Call it Creation Engine, Call it what the fuck ever.
Its still NetImmerse.
They can keep slapping fresh makeup on it, and keep wraping new ducttape around it when the old stuff wears out and fails, but it'll always be the same engine, regardless of the name changes.
They dont want to invest in making a whole new engine (which, given Bethesda, would be just as bad or worse than what they use now), and they don't seem to want to license anyone elses engine. Which is weird, cause subsidiary studios don't seem to have the same issue.. Like, Ghostwire Tokyo is built on Unreal Engine 4.
im sick of this excuse. since its not one. nobody is forcing them to use that engine
The will of the dev is not the will of the producer.
then change it? or just cope hearing your game is not very good
Oh yeah things were that simple, just change it ! Man who would have thought ! Hey we need your help on other issue what can we do about the economic crisis, world hunger or civils wars ?
taking the other side of the argument, planetary landings in E:D are just loading screens at 10x the length. Travelling to a planet at .3 C is neat the first time but then you look at trade routes as “how long do I sit paying attention in case of an interdiction?” StarCitizen falls into the same trap. QD is neat but then it takes you 5 minutes and a fuel stop to go from one side of a system to another. Its mundane trudging for reality rather than getting the boring monotony out of the way of the player.
Just because the tech exists doesn’t mean it makes for compelling gameplay.
I can agree with this but I do wish it involved fewer loading screens and clicking through each time. If you're gonna skip the "realism" to make it more convenient then make it actually convenient.
With that said despite that and the fact I'd love to fly the ship over the planets manually, I'm really liking it so far (2h in).
Yeah I can't really disagree with people's assessment of how much travel-by-loading-screen there can be, but like... while it's there, I just mostly haven't noticed it. Thirty hours in now and I find I'm mixing up fast travelling wide distances with "manually" travelling by launching into orbit and jumping place to place fairly regularly, I don't think I'd even have thought to criticize it without coming here.
I like how immersive travel can be in a game like NMS, but it's not like it's all that exciting or fun to pull into the atmosphere for the 500th time and maneuver to your landing pad, or spend longer than a loading screen amount of time to boost out of atmosphere to hit the jump button. We're exchanging one form of slightly tedious load for a different one.
The best answer I have to minimizing the interaction is setting routes from your mission list. On PC this cuts down to L > click mission > R > hold X.
It is still 4 discrete inputs, which sucks, but it is substantially better than navigating by the star map which is how my brain defaulted to fast travel for most of my first play through.
There are all kinds of possibilities, and for one example of a video game system for travelling among the stars that gives you a sense of actually going somewhere without getting too dull I'd point to EVE. You can go anywhere, but there are distant and dangerous places that take actual effort to get to. It lets you get some kind of sense of the distances involved. Having made that comparison it's hard to avoid noticing that the space combat (even against NPCs) and ship outfitting are quite good too compared to how it looks in Starfield. Planetary interaction was pretty tedious when I played it, but EVE is mostly really good at the space stuff.
Another example would be good old Star Control II, another of my favourite space games. Another one that managed to make space feel big. You had to carefully manage fuel and resources, and if you wanted to go all the way across the map you'd have a long and interesting journey during which many things would happen. Combat and navigation were primitive compared to what people expect today, but still it made it feel like you were exploring a vast space, not just a big catalogue of planets.
As for Starfield, I don't know whether it does that or not since I haven't played it yet; I'd sort of like to find out before I spend $ on it.
you cant really compare gate-to-gate traversal to the other primary space games though. unless you are in a capital ship, generally you have a warp around 3-5 so even Niarja (minus dock workers) only takes a few seconds to cross. If we just focus on hub routes, I don’t recall the exact number, but Amarr to Jita/Dodi is between 25-60 jumps depending on your risk tolerance. That is 25 discrete load screens, with a Leopard and no 0 tick gate camps thats still around 10-20 minutes of just loading. EVE is an exceptionally bad example to pull and why I excluded it.
If you want something like Star Control then running the bubble in E:D is your best option, just never install a fuel scoop.
What I want is just something where travel takes enough time and effort that interesting problems can arise during the course of it that aren't just generic random encounters. Something where different parts of space have local character, something like geography rather than a flat isotropic void where distance is meaningless. In each case the technology used for moving about is entirely fictional, so I don't see a reason not to make it interesting. I was just pointing out examples of that being done, not advocating for either of them being the one true way to do it.
transit in EVE isn’t really anything to write home about though. Target, align, warp, jump, target, align, warp, jump.
Gate camps are player based RNG with a difficulty slider. Do you take the shorter run thru Niarja or do you add an extra 30 jumps for relative safety barring CODE affiliates.
if what you want is a completely bespoke experience where a system has only explicit experiences then you immediately lose out on the design intent behind Starfield and the storyline within is immediately hollowed out and meaningless.
besides, its a video game. everything is a generic random encounter rolled on a table hidden from the player. if you want a better experience, Starfinder is there.
I used to make a living hauling valuable stuff from the outer edge of low-sec in to Jita and such places. Sure it got to be pretty much routine after a while. Well, most of the time. But then it's always possible in that game to go off and do something else instead. The experience of exploring it all for the first time though, having not yet gathered the knowledge and resources to do it in anything like safety or comfort, was fantastic. If you could just teleport instantly from one place to anywhere without significant cost it wouldn't even be a game. I'm not saying that the mechanics of transportation should dominate every game like they do EVE, but having at least some of that sort of thing seems like a good idea in a game that's supposed to be about exploring a space of any kind. I disable fast travel in Skyrim too. It makes things too quick and convenient.
Well, guess what? You can walk to the starport, open the door to your ship, walk into the cockpit, sit down, launch into space, target your next system navpoint, power up your grav driv, and jump to the next system. You won’t be on a planet, you will be in space. Will you find a trader? System security fighting pirates? A bounty hunter wanting to cash in on you? An old lady that wants you to come over for tea? Dunno. But you aren’t fast traveling. Genuinely the crux of your complaint has been “i dont know how it works but its bad and I dont like it”
Anyway, thanks, I guess that question is more or less answered.
You can actually fast travel directly to cities, even when you're in a different system.
Yes, you can. There are several levels of fast travel and you can use it how you prefer.
For me, the criticism is more directed toward the PR and hype. There's still lots to like about the game, it's just frustrating how they spin it.
I'm glad you're enjoying it!
I haven't had a chance to play it yet. Moving and still have to get through BG3. But I'm actually excited for it. Like I see posts over and over and over and over and over and over about the the fact that it's not NMS. Sure, kind of disappointing. And I will agree that if you keep running into the same exact structures over and over, maybe they could have done something different. Have some sort of procedurally generated structures.
But that seems to mostly be it. Every review I've watched talks pretty positively about the other aspects. It's got some bugs, which is to he expected, and apperantly the melee combat isn't clunky and awkward. But those seem to be the biggest complaints outside of not being able to land.
So I'm gonna do what I've seen a lot of people said to do. I'm gonna go into the Bethesda game and play it largely like it's a Bethesda game. Gonna go through the main story, the different factions, do some side quests, etc.
It's not No Man's Sky. Cool. Call of Duty isn't Escape From Tarkov. I have played both of those and loved them both for completely different reasons, and I don't expect them both to be the same. If anything I got bored of No Man's Sky after a bit. Partially because I'm just not into the base building, and itnfelt like that was the main thing to do outside of explore. Little to no stories. Last I heard we still don't have the faction system they talked about when the game was first launching. Starfield has things going for it over NMS.
I think people had their expectations too high. People are expecting it to be as good as skyrim was for 2011 but in 2023, but I went in expecting it to be as good as (vanilla) skyrim is now and so far that's what I feel like I got.
Yeah, I had no expectations and I like it. I always get disappointed when I have high expectations.
Tbh I'm mainly disappointed in the graphics of the surroundings.