Video Game Chatter

It's still very open world, but it is very overwhelming at first. So much going on, so many places to explore. I think the gun play is better than Fall Out as well.
 
Cowboysrock55 said:
It's still very open world, but it is very overwhelming at first. So much going on, so many places to explore. I think the gun play is better than Fall Out as well.
Click to expand...

It definitely is.

It's still a good game.

I don't like the lack of openness though. I don't like you can't manually land on a planet.
 
Genghis Khan said:
Oh. That's no big deal. I can't walk the entire planet in real life either.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say it's "no big deal." It's just not what the game is, so you have to adjust your expectations and enjoy what is there.... but I don't like the change. Not when No Man's Sky demonstrated how to do far more openness in space years ago. Bethesda has far more resources, they couldn't even get close?

What happens is that on a planet there are a handful of permanent things, like cities.

Anything else, you select a place to "land," your ship, and the game procedurally generates a mini sandbox based on the planet's stats and where you picked to land (ie, if you pick to land on a coast, it will generate a coastal map, if you pick in the mountains, it generates a mountainous map, etc). It then populates the mini sandbox with procedurally generated things like pirate outposts or dungeons.

But the problem is, this is all random and temporal. You only get 4 landing spots on a planet. After that, if you land at a 5th spot on a planet, it erases the first spot. The dungeon you explored is literally wiped from existence in the game.

From what I've seen so far, the way they are combating this temporal nature is that the mini sandboxes that the game is generating for you to walk around in... are so boring that you don't want to walk all the way across one. There is nothing IN them, except the procedural outposts or dungeons or the random space mudcrab you come across to shoot.

Skyrim's whole world felt like an adventure. "What is over that next hill?" and "I want to get to the top of this ridge to see what I can see." Whereas the dungeons in Skyrim, though more hand-crafted than say, Oblivion, tended to get real stale real fast.

Starfield feels like the opposite. There is no real world to explore, but their procedurally generated "dungeons," which are randomly created and populated in your landing zones, are the meat of the game. In this sense, it's good that the gun play is better, because the dungeon clearing is going to be the game's highlight, not the exploration.

But it also leaves the writing (main quests and side quests) as the hook that you have to follow. Doing side quests and side content to lead you to the dungeons to clear. If you are expecting to get lost exploring the map, nope, don't bet on it. How could you? There isn't even a static map to get lost exploring. There are no points of interest worth exploring because literally anywhere you put your ship down can be erased.

I really, really don't like the fact that when you "warp," to a planet, you are placed in orbit above the planet (this is the game's staging area for space dogfights), but it's all just scenery. You can't actually fly down to the planet or to another planet.

I even understand that they can't make an entire open world galaxy, that they can't let you fly from one star-system to another. It would be just too massive. But they can't make the individual solar systems explorable? I can't fly from Earth to Mars?

That should have been possible.

I don't think their ancient game engine can handle it. But then it should be scrapped and they should build a new one from the ground up, because other companies are lapping them in that regard.
 
Also, Pete Hines straight up said you can walk around a whole planet and you can't.

There is no static map of any of the planets!

He could have just explained that but I guess that takes more than the 240 character limit on Twitter.
 
I'll also say this.

I think Mass Effect did a better "capital city in space" .... in fucking 2007.

I know I'm ranting, and Starfield is a good game.

But Bethesda should make great games. And Fallout 4 was not one and I don't think Starfield is either.
 
I played the new Madden and I liked it, but I have to admit I didn't have time to see what all is broken or bad about it.

I subscribe to EA Play which is a really good deal, and I played 10 hours of the game.

I hadn't played Madden in many years and it looks like they FINALLY made it to where you can make real NFL throws. They added a bunch of passing trajectories that were missing for far too long. You can finally throw the ball over the shoulder of a defender without him leaping to the moon to bat it down.

I love how receivers can now catch passes in full stride with no slowdown as well.

I think because I enjoyed the passing game so much, I came away with a positive impression and really didn't focus on much beyond that.

If anyone here gets the full game and still has positive things to say about it a month from now, I may consider buying it.
 
Smitty said:
I'll also say this.

I think Mass Effect did a better "capital city in space" .... in fucking 2007.

I know I'm ranting, and Starfield is a good game.

But Bethesda should make great games. And Fallout 4 was not one and I don't think Starfield is either.
Click to expand...


I think everything for Bethesda right now is just a distraction while we wait for the next elder scrolls. Which sadly is still a long way away.

It's good to hear you say that starfield is a good game overall though.
 
Texas Ace said:
I played the new Madden and I liked it, but I have to admit I didn't have time to see what all is broken or bad about it.

I subscribe to EA Play which is a really good deal, and I played 10 hours of the game.

I hadn't played Madden in many years and it looks like they FINALLY made it to where you can make real NFL throws. They added a bunch of passing trajectories that were missing for far too long. You can finally throw the ball over the shoulder of a defender without him leaping to the moon to bat it down.

I love how receivers can now catch passes in full stride with no slowdown as well.

I think because I enjoyed the passing game so much, I came away with a positive impression and really didn't focus on much beyond that.

If anyone here gets the full game and still has positive things to say about it a month from now, I may consider buying it.
Click to expand...
I have it and I'm enjoying it much more than anticipated.
 
Texas Ace said:
What would you say is better about the game now and what legacy issues still exist?
Click to expand...
As you mentioned, I like the new throwing mechanics options. I also like that I don't see defenses making unbelievable plays for interceptions like they did in the past. Most of mine are just stupid mistakes on my part, which should be the norm. Plus running the ball seems easier in a sense that guys will hold their block a split second longer so making what should be a good cut behind a blocker isn't automatically a tackle cause you're close to a defender. He's engaged with a block so shouldn't make that play.
 
I started Starfield last night and I am enjoying it quite a bit so far. I'm not very far in though.
 
Cowboysrock55 said:
Why is it that graphics on stuff like this are always so poor? I see the video footage and it reminds me of playing Madden back in like 2000. Is there a reason they can't make the players at least sort of life like?
Click to expand...

I think it's both more demanding, and also requires more responsiveness, since, you know, it has to be life-like smooth since you are reacting as if it's life.

Which means they have to turn the graphics down, especially since they want it to work on a PS5 which will ultimately be hardware limited compared to modern PCs.

But that's just my guess.
 
Smitty said:
I think it's both more demanding, and also requires more responsiveness, since, you know, it has to be life-like smooth since you are reacting as if it's life.

Which means they have to turn the graphics down, especially since they want it to work on a PS5 which will ultimately be hardware limited compared to modern PCs.

But that's just my guess.
Click to expand...

Could be, and in fairness I don't own any VR stuff. It's just everything I see in terms of clips just seems to be so subpar that I've never really seriously given it a consideration. The concept of it seems great, I think I would enjoy an immersive experience that makes you really feel like you're in another world. But I think I'd struggle with it if the players and characters look like they are something out of a video game I played on a PS1.
 
I may have to buy the game again so I can play as him.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom