this post was submitted on 10 Dec 2023
354 points (93.6% liked)
Games
16971 readers
682 users here now
Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)
Posts.
- News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
- Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
- No humor/memes etc..
- No affiliate links
- No advertising.
- No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
- No self promotion.
- No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
- No politics.
Comments.
- No personal attacks.
- Obey instance rules.
- No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
- Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.
My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.
Other communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
6.5/7 is fine if you're not paying $70 for the base game. It might be worth it now the costs have come down, but paying a premium price for a mid game justifies some of the shit people gave it.
That said, I played on Game Pass, big fan of the genre, and could only make it a few hours in. Just wasn't for me. But then I really enjoyed The Outer Worlds and people shit on that too.
How does it compare to Outer Worlds? I found myself really bored in that game pretty often and I'm a huge Fallout fan so it surprised me how bland it all felt 90% of the time.
It's really weird how many people stop "a few hours in". Modern Bethesda games are notoriously slow-starts. A few hours in is still "training wheels" for the game.
I'm not saying you should go back to it, but how did you know it's not for you that quickly?
As for Outer Worlds. I enjoyed it for what it was, but I'm of the fringe view that it doesn't hold a candle to Starfield. It has more style, but less substance than Starfield IMO.
I feel like that hasn't been true since Oblivion. Skyrim has you getting dragon powers a few hours in. Fallout gives you a gun and you're blasting stuff right off the bat.
It's those earlier games that force you to slow down. Morrowind for example gives you cave outside the first town that will almost certainly kill you if you go in.
Pretty much. In Starfield, the game gives you a ship that can reach about 75% of the star systems, and you can literally just start finding/stealing ships to cross the entire galaxy at the 1hr mark. If you know where you're going, Starfield gets you in the action blazingly fast. If you don't, well, that's why they all (newer ones) hold your hand in the main story.
For me, it was a lot of small moments that added up quickly. (By a few hours, I gave it at least 10 or so). One big one was I'd chosen the talent where you get a house on a planet but with a mortgage. I thought this would be a cool way to give me an economic incentive to explore more etc.
I get to New Atlantis and follow the quest for this and I find out the 'mortgage' has no penalties, isn't paid in installments, and can only be purchased in a lump-sum. So, it was a talent that gave me the ability to purchase a house and be able to essentially rent it on a per day basis until the full amount was paid. When I finally do get there the house is empty, and not all that fun to be in. No special quests etc tied to it.
Another moment that soured it for me, and this is a minor quibble but again they added up, was visiting The Eye for the first time. There was this big pile of trash in a corridor used as the block to the door to prevent further exploration. It just entirely took me out of my immersion in what should have been an epic moment. So much so I actually took a screenshot of it at the time.
A lot of folks are likely happy to look past those things but they all added up + reviews from folks further along in the story and gameplay giving a bad impression made me move onto something new. Super happy other folks were able to find enjoyment, just wasn't for me.
I also didn't resonate with any of the companions to a degree where I found them actively annoying to be around. I know some would say 'just don't loot' but their constant calling out people who like to loot was annoying too.
Whereas with Outer Worlds I immediately loved Pravati (and most of the other companions too). Starfield I felt like I was talking to puppets only there because I was playing the game. Outer Worlds I felt a connection to their stories as much as my own.
That said, many systems in Outer Worlds were underdeveloped and parts of the game felt empty. It was a game of high highs but also low lows. It did make me excited for the sequel to build on that foundation though.
Genuinely curious, but what systems did you feel added more substance to Starfield? Dialogue choices and completing quests in various ways really made Outer Worlds shine for me, particularly in the DLCs.
Help, now I'm stuck on Imgur again v.v
I mean... welcome to Bethesda-style?
I can see the value in tying a few quests to it. So is your preference that they gutted the background system entirely? Other than the parents, there's very little unique content tied to them. They're just "flavor".
Honestly, this feels like DLC-bait to me. I can see why you'd want to "repair the eye to full working order" and maybe we will see that in the future. But for reference, there's notes that imply the rest of the Eye is fully depressurized and needs to be repaired but time and money don't allow for it.
This is what I think is happening with most people. They see reviews and they sour of an otherwise great game. I saw this happen with the Wheel of Time show as well.
This is a common Bethesda thing. If you want to be as thief, the list of companions that are ok with you stealing from everybody is fairly slim.
For me... to start, I'm a tES lifer. Most of what I like is the things tES does consistently. Grand-Theft-Spaceship. Low consequences. Decente stories for each faction. A good main plotline. Neat mechanics to play with, a few more than you really need. I enjoyed making ships and bases, playing around with powers.
Wide-not-deep is the Bethesda manifesto, but it works for the right gamers.
Ive not played a single bethesda game beside starfield that didnt hook me a few hours in. They arent that slow to start.
I found Arena horribly slow to start. Skyrim had a "reputation" since release of being a slow start.
Lol wasn't Arena the first game they ever made?
Nope, The Terminator came first.. And I don't think that's THE first game, either.
I only knew this because I did some research out of confusion. See, when I grew up I had a game by a company called "Bethsoft", and I vaguely remember it being a joust clone (though I could be confusing two things). I remembered it real well because I was 9 years old and their logo was a "tastefully" topless fairy. And you know what "tasteful" means to a 9 year old boy lol
Edit, looks like their very first game was Gridiron!
Right. Arena is the first Elder Scrolls game.
Right. Arena has a special place in my heart. Never got close to beating it, but played hundreds of hours anyway. I wasn't very good at finishing games at that age lol.
Daggerfall was a dramatically better experience IMO. Never beat that one either, but I played it more than Arena. If I recall, that one was the one where just chilling out and questing could cause the main quest to timeout.
I enjoyed Outer Worlds. It doesn't hold a candle to Starfield.
Agreed. I petered out in the early game on playthrough #2. Just decided "this isn't really worth replays"
I just have a hard time committing so much time for the chance for something to get good. Same for anything else. People keep telling me to watch one piece, sorry not going to invest time in something I am actively not enjoying until it gets good X hours in. That's not getting good, it's Stockholm syndrome.
I mean, that's what we ALL do when we play an epic-length game. But if you're not into epic-length games, that's cool
I disagree. A lot of epic tales grab you in the opening. In fact that's a bit of a cornerstone of writing, grab them early. If there's nothing for me to like in the first two hours of something, why should I assume it's going to get better?
Fair enough. Don't read the Wheel of Time then (or any Epic Fantasy, if we're being honest) :)
I haven't read those books, but is there really nothing interesting in them in the first few chapters? No breaks from the norm, nothing to grab you and keep you invested? Tbf epic fantasy, yeah, not my genre but it seems so foreign to me, having it be THAT slow of a burn.
The first book (about 900 pages if I recall) is largely an homage to Tolkien with the slow meandering journey punctuated only by a few action sequences. There's a few incredible beats (surprise, Wheel of Time is my favorite literature and I've read the 14-book series 6-7 times), but the author quickly shows his notorious slow pacing. It is a true joke that he can spend an entire page explaining the braid in someone's hair and exactly how they pull at it when they're angry.
But a lot of epic fantasy is notoriously slow with world-building.