-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Forbes Contributor: "I Don’t Even Understand How ‘Starfield’ Exists"
- Thread starter Ombretoile
- Start date
Not to mention CD Projekt Red released a deep dive video a few months out from Cyberpunk's release, which completely misrepresented the final game.
Having said that, I trust Bethesda.
Agreed for the most part, but Paul Tassi is the exception IMO
Paul is like the only Forbes contributor to speak of though lol. He often posts wild takes
There's people who love Bethesda RPGs and then there are RPG fans that try to get into Bethesda RPGs and bump up against their shallow RPG elements, floaty combat and non-existent emergent gameplay. It's been this same song and dance since Oblivion. Maybe Starfield will break this cycle and unite all fans of open world RPGs but I doubt any kind of glowing praise from previews is enough to dispel the cynicism you see from those critical of Bethesda's recent output.
You posted a few months back that Starfield's gameplay looks straight up bad and that you had zero hype for the game.
I think your issue with this title may run deeper than the points you are trying to make here.
It must suck living your life filled with so much cheap cynicism. I'm fairly certain people won't be complaining about Starfields lack of content.
Like I said later, you can dislike BGS games all you want, that's totally fine. It's the whole Bethesda makes bad games, or BGS game launches are awful that doesn't make sense. You can hate their games, but don't act like your opinion is the general consensus.
Starfield threads always bring in the exact same copy and paste negative comments that try to downplay the studio and their games, it's weird as hell. If you don't like BGS games you don't have to enter a Starfield thread and act like your opinion speaks for the mass market because it demonstrably doesn't.
There is a difference between cynicism and just plain old negativity.
That's fair, I can't say I've seen everything he posts. I always assumed I only ever noticed him because I was only paying attention to the good Forbes articles
I was gonna assume "Don't doubt Todd and the team at Rockville"
'Only' 5-6 major cities sounds fair but many more settlements and a lot of ouposts dotted around most planets I would imagine. There's only so much they can craft by hand after all but I would be surprised if there isn't some settlement/outpost-like content within the procedural generation.
That's 5-6 more cities, 15-20 small more settlements and 999 more planets than last year's RPG of the year Elden Ring. Sounds good to me.
I'm not disagreeing with you, just giving some perspective where this negativity is coming from. Personal, I don't think their games are bad, they just haven't been hitting right since Morrowind. I want Starfield to be as good as the hype around that presentation but like I said the cynicism runs deep.
I think the frame-rate stuttering trailer with gunplay, they released a while ago looked pretty bad. I think even today, the gunplay just looks above average, though I think the new gameplay overall looked pretty good. If you search my post history you'll see I also say things like "I'll resub later for Starfield" regarding gamepass, and in regards to buying another series X I write "I'll cave again later for Starfield".
I'm still excited for Starfield, not exclusively but alongside many other games.
Wait, this isn't even a hands-on, but rather just based off the showcase?
Like, this is the same Zenimax/Bethesda that just published Redfall, right? I admit that was a great presentation, but, I remain shocked at how quickly people still fall for this company's marketing and PR.
Like, this is the same Zenimax/Bethesda that just published Redfall, right? I admit that was a great presentation, but, I remain shocked at how quickly people still fall for this company's marketing and PR.
This is solved. It was a RAM and storage issue on PS3/360 gen consoles.The PS3 had 256mb of total RAM which was lol for sure. For reference, 2005 Oblivion on PC asks for 512mb system RAM, 128mb VRAM (so 640mb split RAM). Skyrim, which was more modern and came out 6 years later, had less than half that to work with. It's a miracle those games ran on those consoles at all.
That despite the hype this game is going to ship broken and busted just like all other recent insanely ambitious open world games. This isn't my opinion, it's just the most likely outcome given previous events. Even more so considering BGS's track record.
Zenimax/Bethesda does not = BGS. BGS is TES and Fallout. People who can make the distinction are excited for the next big game from the team who made those games.
Could be. But it takes like a small team of mostly software engineers to handle proc-gen (isn't Hello Games like 10 people?) and an army of modellers and artists to handcraft cities & settlements, so it's not like having those 990 "empty" planets is taking away from anything either way.
They already said a while back that they have four bigger cities. They also said it has way more handcrafted content than any other Bethesda game ever.
When doing one of these extremely rare "everything" space games, you need to scope the game correctly to make it work, so communicating they only have four bigger cities or that you can't transition from space to planet directly, is encouraging as it shows they're aware of necessary limitations.
And a really big box for its time
(I actually didn't like Earthbound that much)
I mean they're not, but the others I know of are traditional roguelikes. Depends on what you mean by scale, I mean they're huge and awesome but not 3D
No, but you said simulationist RPGs, and a game like Caves of Qud reminds me of TES in a lot of ways, except the setting is somehow much more insane and the writing is exceptionally good
Bethesda Softworks does the marketing for all of their studios. I'm not saying the game won't be great, but I am saying to never fully believe this marketing team.
I'd feel differently if it was just Todd out there with a prototype talking about things the game could do, but they did a lot of showing, not telling, in the showcase, which goes a lot further with me. We're 3 months from release, not 3 years. They can't exactly bullshit systems when release is imminent.
I think it's pretty easy to understand if you've been following the industry at all. There's nothing unbelievable about Starfield. Especially with all the procedural generation and the loading transitions from space to planet surface. No Man's Sky would blow this person's mind.
I'm guessing it'll feel like a polished Fallout 4 in the gameplay, with procgen planets, and space combat/ship stuff in the middle.
I just hope they have more choice and consequences. I disliked that so much after loving new vegas and going to 4, the combat was better in 4, but the rpg part took such a step back.
And on paper no man's sky sounds cool, but I just can't get into it…. Every new release for awhile Id restart and I just disliked the inventory ui, and mining the minerals/ship repair.
I'm guessing I'll enjoy starfields more since it's a standard style bgs game.
I just hope they have more choice and consequences. I disliked that so much after loving new vegas and going to 4, the combat was better in 4, but the rpg part took such a step back.
And on paper no man's sky sounds cool, but I just can't get into it…. Every new release for awhile Id restart and I just disliked the inventory ui, and mining the minerals/ship repair.
I'm guessing I'll enjoy starfields more since it's a standard style bgs game.
Didn't know you already played the game. This thinly veiled stuff is so transparent.
Tassi has some alright stuff (he has a YT channel too), but he also posts a lot of obvious "Paul Tassi pays his bills on a per-article basis" stuff on Forbes, lol.
I really think it's because the showcase just had so much actual gameplay and went into such great depth. But you're right, no one does a game presentation like Bethesda.
Honestly, this could maybe have been the best game presentation I've ever seen. The only one that rivals it for me was Halo 2 back in the day, but not sure if that's nostalgia talking lol!
It's a combination of things for me. Digital Foundry mentioned it multiple times in their video, but at no point has Bethesda been known for making visually appealing games. Starfield is trying to have great combat (which would be a first for Bethesda), great visuals (another first), AND all of these complex systems like 1k planets, big cities, ship creation and management, settlement creation and management, etc... It just seems like a lot of individual components that Bethesda hasn't really been known for doing well in the past.
And it's not like they're just telling us the game's doing all of this. They showed it in the 40-minute video. It looks really impressive, and although they didn't show anything worrying in the video, I'm still skeptical.
The 40 minutes of gameplay they showed us of Starfield looks absolutely incredible.
No Man's Sky, even after as many major updates as it's received, still feels like it's just a resource management game. Which is fine, but not what I'm really interested in.
And it's not like they're just telling us the game's doing all of this. They showed it in the 40-minute video. It looks really impressive, and although they didn't show anything worrying in the video, I'm still skeptical.
At no point did Bethesda manage to convince people that Redfall would be a good game. Most people that thought it would be good were basing that entirely off of Arkane's history of making fantastic games. But gameplay video after gameplay video was disappointing as hell.
The 40 minutes of gameplay they showed us of Starfield looks absolutely incredible.
The big thing with Starfield, at least for me, is that while it appears to have the resource collecting of No Man's Sky, it also has that Fallout/Elder Scrolls dungeon crawling with some solid first-person combat and looting actual meaningful things. Also leveling up and skill trees and all that.
No Man's Sky, even after as many major updates as it's received, still feels like it's just a resource management game. Which is fine, but not what I'm really interested in.
It really looks like the ultimate space game. The game that anyone with the slightest interest in space exploration has been dreaming of forever.
There's been like 6-7 responses to his crappy, uninformed take and he hasn't come back to reply. Quite sure it was a drive-by.
Some people can't stand not being part of the hype.
R* and Bethesda are the reasons why every AAA game seems to be an open world RPG (or at least an open world game with varying degrees of RPG elements).