Reminder that starfield is playable and enjoyable, with decent performance and a complete game with a shitload of missions. Can Starfield be better? Yeah, and I think it probably will be with a bit if time. Is the space combat a little bit dogshit with really nice audio design? Yeah, it sure is. Is it actually out, playable, with boarding and ship building? Yep, sure seems like it.
I don’t even know why you threw this example out there for a single player game that’s pretty much what everyone expected from a AAA studio in the current “optimize every dev hour per dollar” bottom line focused game dev style.
Renacles@discuss.tchncs.de 11 months ago
Starfield had less than half the budget of Star Citizen and actually came out.
steakmeout@aussie.zone 11 months ago
That depends on your perspective on the engine and dev tools.
Car@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 months ago
Does it really though?
Starfield could have been programmed in potato with ti-84 calculators as dev tools. The work has been done to bring a playable game to the market.
steakmeout@aussie.zone 11 months ago
The point I was making was a response to the budget statement. Starfield uses an engine that bethsoft first licensed expensively, modified extensively at expense and then bought the company’s assets. The game’s singular budget does not show the development cost. That was my point.
If we’re discussing game dev budgets we’re not talking from an end user perspective.