50
Here Are The Nominees For The Game Awards 2023 - Game Informer
(www.gameinformer.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 13 Nov 2023
50 points (100.0% liked)
Gaming
30500 readers
144 users here now
From video gaming to card games and stuff in between, if it's gaming you can probably discuss it here!
Please Note: Gaming memes are permitted to be posted on Meme Mondays, but will otherwise be removed in an effort to allow other discussions to take place.
See also Gaming's sister community Tabletop Gaming.
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
They might go up but I'd be surprised it will rival Skyrim. I'm a Skyrim fan, yet I'm not enticed to play Starfield for reasons beyond me. It feels like it's lacking something and I can't put my finger on it. I don't believe mods would make much of a difference, but who knows, maybe I'm wrong.
I modded Skyrim (and Oblivion) because the vanilla game was exciting already, in spite of its flaws. I couldn't be bothered otherwise.
For me, it's the vast expanses of procedurally generated nothingness in Starfield that turns me off the most, especially combined with the menu-based fast travel heavy way you get around.
The magic of Bethesda games comes from their handcrafted open worlds, always full of things to see and explore and get sidetracked by. Its the feeling that kicks in when the horizon first opens up after you exit the sewer/vault/customs office and you realize that you can just pick a direction and start walking and you'll come across something interesting.
Starfield doesn't do that. You can't just pick a direction and go, it's all fast travel. And if you're down on a planet you can, but there is no magic to be found because it's all procedurally generated emptiness between copy-pasted points of interest.
In their ambitions to have a bigger scope than ever they sacrificed the very thing that made their games so compelling to begin with.
I think the perfect example of this are the caves that show up sometimes.
First time I found one, I thought "neat, I wonder what's in there." So I go exploring and find out that... nothing. Nothing is in there. It's just an empty cave. So I find a second one, hoping that was a fluke and again... nothing.
The procedurally generated content is severely lacking in a reason for even existing.Nothing is worth exploring in Starfield because there's just nothing there.
This is exactly my thought. In Skyrim, every tree stump looked like it had the benefit of a beauty pass by an artist. In Starfield, it's very clear that most of the ground was never looked at before I got there, and there's no reason for me to look at it now
Depth is what Starfield is lacking, imo. It fixes a lot of what both skyrim and f4 did wrong (there're backgrounds, they affect your skills, and they come up from time to time, to mention one), but they regressed so hard on other things. They tried new stuff but the delivery was so limp dicked that everything landed awkwardly, or not at all. Think the game suffered because of scope creep, honestly, if they had limited the game to just a handful of planets, they could've tailored the experience and they wouldn't feel so empty.
And as always, their obsession to let you do everything in one playthrough hurt the game hard. There's very little reason to go for a second playthrough.
Like, they did a good job with most of the game's mechanics, but everything else is mid as hell. Very forgettable.