565
Starfield is now mostly negative in recent reviews
(store.steampowered.com)
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 25 Dec 2023
565 points (94.8% liked)
Games
16751 readers
609 users here now
Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)
Posts.
- News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
- Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
- No humor/memes etc..
- No affiliate links
- No advertising.
- No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
- No self promotion.
- No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
- No politics.
Comments.
- No personal attacks.
- Obey instance rules.
- No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
- Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.
My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.
Other communities:
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
The real issue is that it’s not Skyrim in space. Skyrim in space would’ve been better. What we got was a hollow husk of a game. There’s no substance or charm, because it’s all procedurally generated hills and cliffs.
procedurally generated ain't all bad, but for this game it was not the move. As soon as I heard about "100+ planets" i kinda lost hope in the game. What they should've done instead was make A Solar System. 8 or so planets to land in, explore, and do quests in, and go absolutely ham on those 8 planets to make them as intesting and diverse from each other as possible. The rest would be moons or space stations you'd find exploring space. IDK, this could just be me, but i feel doing this alone would have improved the game significantly
Yeah that sounds fun af. Procedural generation has a place, but devs need to stop assuming every game should have it. Quality over quantity.
Or to steal an argument about AI writing “if you couldn’t be bothered to make the levels, why do you think it can hold my attention in an exploration game”
On one hand, I kinda understand why people in general, not just game devs, try and implement the "bigger is better" idea. It's easy, and all you really need to do is, theoretically, be "bigger" than the competition.
Problem here is that the closest competition to Starfeild is No Man's Sky, despite not being in the same genre (I've seen the same thing being asked in so many reviews: "What does Starfield do that NMS doesn't?" Like, even plotwise. I didn't even know NMS had a plot TBH). And Bethesda decided to (intentionally or otherwise) ape NMS, not realizing that procedural generation worked in NMS because for one, it's a survivalcraft at heart while Starfeild isn't, and because the five main compents of that game are...well, solidly made, and tie INTO the galaxy being procedurally generated (especially the survival and building aspect) instead of it being tacked on for the "wow factor". Nowadays, i mean. On release tho...gonna assume you could have easily made that argument.
Meanwhile, Starfield's galaxy is procedurally generated because....the player apparently needs a buffet of locations to explore to kill/rack up time rather than a handful of them with actually handcrafted touches and purpose divided into star systems (so they can get the space Odyssey vibe the game is trying to go with) or something, kinda like the way Mass Effect 2's map was.
It's a completely different game and genre, but that's exactly what made the space exploration Outer Wilds so great: One seamless solar system, fully handcrafted with literally zero filler content. Not even a single location. No matter what you find, it's always meaningful and connected to other things in the game.
Of course, that doesn't mean it's the only way, but it really highlights the limits of procedural generation.
It's not the procedural generation that's the problem.
It's that they are building on top of a shit engine and so they only procedurally generated the landscapes and don't procedurally generate the actual content.
So you will go to 25 different generated planets and then do the exact same output 25 different times. The exact same outpost. With the same crap in each room. The same exact layout.
The most extreme example of this ridiculousness is the temples with the exact same minigame hundreds of times on hundreds of plants in different playthroughs.
It's not that it has procedural generation.
It's that it doesn't have enough of it to execute on the concept of a full and varied universe.
They need to pick a direction, and they didn't. Either commit to procedural generation and make it good, or don't bother and make a really good Skyrim-type experience.
I don't think Starfield devs knew which they wanted so they kinda did both... poorly.
time for mods to go all in on handmade design then and delete the proc gen
Or just... don't? Mods shouldn't be fixing a bad game, they should be adding value to a good game. Mod devs should spend their time on better games.
I was punished for exploring. I ended up finding something that is not useful until the scripted event allows you to make it relevant. It's the opposite of Skyrim where you can explore so much you can end up in Blackreach.
With Starfield you should stick to the script and never explore on your own. Only explore planets the main storylines have asked you to visit and never before.