The game has some issues but, surprisingly, bugs really aren’t one of them.
Everything in Starfield feels like more clicking through (horribly outdated) menus and inventory screens. Between those and the loading screens, the only time the game is really fun is when you’re shooting pirates. But there are games that do that part much much better.
This is just a summary of modern Bethesda games in a nutshell, except forgetting to mention bugs as well.
I really don’t know what people where expecting with Starfield
c0c0c0@lemmy.world 9 months ago
CIWS-30@kbin.social 9 months ago
I think Microsoft can be thanked for that. They buckled down and lent their support to make sure Starfield didn't have constant crashes and backwards flying spaceships and whatnot.
Kolanaki@yiffit.net 9 months ago
I could understand expecting improvements before they actually showed the game off; but after the very first gameplay reveal, it should have been pretty obvious to anyone familiar with BGS that it was going to be the same as Skyrim and Fallout 4, but with a different aesthetic and theme.
Everything Starfield does to blow my expectations was that it’s surprisingly stable and bug free. I’m playing it with a 1660 Super and it’s playable (I mean, only 30 fps when outside). Fallout 4 wasn’t even playable at launch (single digit fps when anywhere near Boston) and I had the recommended specs for it.
OscarRobin@lemmy.world 9 months ago
No it really isn’t. In all prior Bethesda games you could get from any place in the world to any other just by walking and maybe some loading screens if you’re going from/to a city or dungeon. In Starfield you have to use menus and loading screens to get from most places to most other places.
Also, Starfield places more emphasis on amassing items due to having resources etc than the previous-worst Fallout 4, and all prior Bethesda games didn’t have resources to manage, just items.
So no, while Starfield is very much like previous Bethesda games, many flaws and issues are exacerbated.
Jakeroxs@sh.itjust.works 9 months ago
I’d like to know how many of you actually WALKED everyone in Skyrim or Fallout, I tried it once, boring as fuck and extremely irritating when a quest took me from one side of the map to the other and back. Fast traveling is good and a majority of people that play their game use it almost exclusively where possible.
Y’all are delusional if you think people want to play walking simulators all the time in their RPGs, it’s a very small group who plays them that way.
kmkz_ninja@lemmy.world 9 months ago
Because walking from one side of skyrims map to the other and back is TOTALLY the same as just being able to walk from Riften to Whiterun. The equivalent of which you wouldn’t be able to do in Starfield.
Jakeroxs@sh.itjust.works 9 months ago
Riften to Whiterun is like half the distance from solitude to Riften, walking between either is a chore and 99% of players wouldn’t or don’t do it.