-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
I hope Starfield's reception marks the end of all huge empty open worlds in gaming.
Kabelly
Member
I guess the problem with large open worlds it gives the player an illusion that you can do endless things but the reality is there is always going to be a gameplay loop.
Elden Ring's is massive but what you do in the beginning of the game towards the end of the game doesn't change.
Unless you're Rockstar that has the time and the budget to add a lot of different activies.
And then you have Starfield which has procedurally generated stuff but that stuff is still coded and has a limit.
Elden Ring's is massive but what you do in the beginning of the game towards the end of the game doesn't change.
Unless you're Rockstar that has the time and the budget to add a lot of different activies.
And then you have Starfield which has procedurally generated stuff but that stuff is still coded and has a limit.
Moon Grape Donut
Member
The "this is our biggest game ever", "tons of areas to discover", "a thousand planets" is nothing more than marketing talking to try and hide the problems in your game design. Please, don't give me hundreds of boring areas with fucking nothing to actually discover. I hate a lot of Ubisoft games for that, and knew that Starfield would basically use this strategy - which is a very easy bait for casual consumers and just websites that can post an article about that. I'd much prefer if Starfield had 3-5 planets that are full of interesting stuff. Once again, Baldur's Gate gives a master class in this regard. Areas are very big, but there aren't hundreds and hundreds of main areas to discover. Still, theyre all PACKED with interesting stuff to find out.
Again, it just says that marketing is king. A lot - A LOT - of people had no idea of what the fuck Baldurs Gate was even a month ago. Thats a game that even in early access you could say was special and made with a ton of love. But then we have Bethesda showing their incredble amateur writing and terrible open worlds and they just need that - letters and words - to make the game sell a massive, massive amount. This won't change.
Again, it just says that marketing is king. A lot - A LOT - of people had no idea of what the fuck Baldurs Gate was even a month ago. Thats a game that even in early access you could say was special and made with a ton of love. But then we have Bethesda showing their incredble amateur writing and terrible open worlds and they just need that - letters and words - to make the game sell a massive, massive amount. This won't change.
Gambit2483
Member
People in 2016. None of the planets have any life and its boring as fuq.
Same people today. Its space its basically empty and that's the level of realism I want from a space game.
At the end of the day it's a game and games should be fun.
Yes it's more realistic to have completely empty planets...but is that really fun? Eventually exploration becomes a tedium that youll likely avoid altogether. Jedi powers aren't exactly realistic but they added them because it made the game more fun.
Xenon
Member
People in 2016. None of the planets have any life and its boring as fuq.
Same people today. Its space its basically empty and that's the level of realism I want from a space game.
Firstly, does that dude have Freakishly big hands?
Second, the only thing NMS brought to the table was planet exploration and it was bad... really bad. This in a game where hopping from random planet to random planet was the point of the game. It wasn't trying to be realistic.
You guys are trying so hard, if only you efforts reflected it.
Last edited:
Panajev2001a
GAF's Pleasant Genius
Over 7 years of development for their main team and overall over 500 people worked on it plus outsourcing vs what 20-40 people (maybe less) over three years (without anything close to it in terms of pre-existing OpenWorld exploration games experience)? Are you having a laugh?
Last edited:
Red5
Member
NMS has procedurally generated worlds with resource mining as an objective. Starfield is a Bethesda RPG set in space with handcrafted settlements, planets, voiced companions with their own questlines, main quests, side quests. A full-blown RPG that's bigger than any RPG done by Bethesda, seamless space exploration isn't their main draw.
Both games have extremely different objectives. One relies heavily on seamless space exploration for its appeal the other has space exploration same as Skyrim and RDR 2 have horseback riding.
Last edited:
Panajev2001a
GAF's Pleasant Genius
I think people are not quite sure they should try to play it as Skyrim in space and Starfield also uses tons of procedural generated / assembled content too.
… and again it was developed with FAAAR more people over more than 2x the time, so people are taking that into account.
analog_future
Resident Crybaby
I liked open world games when they accounted for like 10% of all AAA games.
I hate the current market where open world games account for like 75% of all AAA games.
It's too much. Give me more linearity, more focus, more sub-20 hour experiences with meaningful stories and characters and interactions. Open world games are a waste of time 90% of the time nowadays.
I hate the current market where open world games account for like 75% of all AAA games.
It's too much. Give me more linearity, more focus, more sub-20 hour experiences with meaningful stories and characters and interactions. Open world games are a waste of time 90% of the time nowadays.
Xenon
Member
So that was the state the game was at in 2016? Please look at the context and what I was quoting. I played No Man's sky at launch it was a bad game.
The amount of developers is irrelevant considering both games had a different focus.
Last edited:
Panajev2001a
GAF's Pleasant Genius
Oh well, is that so
?
bender
What time is it?
Like with almost everything, one size does not fit all. As far as open worlds are concerned, I find most games have the opposite problem of too much clutter, too much cut/paste content, and designed with no confidence in letting a world breath. I do not to stumble upon something every ten feet for your open world to be enjoyable.
SOTC is one of my favorite open worlds and it is largely barren.
I love Death Stranding...
SOTC is one of my favorite open worlds and it is largely barren.
Last edited:
StreetsofBeige
Gold Member
Bigger is better. At least thats what usually is expected or promoted. And in gaming, it's definitely expected. In other products, smaller can be expected over time due to costs. Everyone knows that companies will try to reduce the size of a bag of chips to keep costs and price low.
But in gaming, if any company ever made a game that is smaller than the last game (especially for adventure games where the devs brag about map size and locations to check out) theyd get raked over the coals.
But that's a problem which devs can blame themselves too. Dont keep promoting how much content or how big the map size is and gamers might not do a laundry list of comparisons vs last game. But it seems game studios need to check off a box that says "Is the game bigger than the last game? Is it open world?" Check mark! Great! we checked that box off to get gamers off our backs.
Last edited:
Xenon
Member
Oh well, is that so
Stardew Valley was made by a single creator and it was a good game and just kept getting better. The main reason it was good was that the creator actually cared about the gameplay. No Man's Sky was an interesting technology that they built a game around. It showed at lunch. Eventually they just kept adding stuff to it and made it into something more interesting and playable. But it originally was a bad game.
Starfield is essentially an RPG set in World where humans are exploring space. It's not a planet exploration game. Does that make sense? Or should I add some emoticons to help you understand.
This forum has a major preoccupation with contrasting Games with completely different design goals and acting like one's deficient because it doesn't match the other's level in a certain aspect of the game.
I don't want Starfield to be a game with numerous planets with a whole bunch of random stuff to do. I don't need hundreds of hours of cut scenes with horny npcs, and I don't need cinematic presentation. Much like with the rest of Bethesda games, just give me a well craftted world/s where I can role play with my character.
Gavon West
Spread's Cheeks for Intrusive Ads
Broooooo, some of you Kats is legit hurt over this game. It's SUPER obvious. Jesus!1000 planets with nothing to do but automated generated garbage who would have thought, apart from the small scripted tailed story segments. Also all the loading..
Genuinely thought the art style is great. Will wait until the game is fixed and mods are in a good place in 6 to 12 months.
Just go buy an Xbox and stop being so damn salty. My goodness! It's a fantastic game.
TrueGrime
Member
3rd planet I've landed on with..
1 insanely large city
22 flora, fauna, resources to search out
8 POI's found in just the spot I landed on
2 civilian outposts with with people living in them
1 mercenary ship that dropped off..
3 mercenaries that were killed by
4 herded fauna that attacked together and according to the pic I posted
2 more POI's that I haven't searched yet
but.. vast, empty, desert wastelands.
Last edited:
Alexios
Cores, shaders and BIOS oh my!
One city on a whole planet doesn't seem that much though. How many cities do you think there are on earth?3rd planet I've landed on with..
1 insanely large city
22 flora, fauna, resources to search out
8 POI's found in just the spot I landed on
2 civilian outposts with with people living in them
1 mercenary ship that dropped off..
3 mercenaries that were killed by
4 herded fauna that attacked together and according to the pic I posted
2 more POI's that I haven't searched yet
but.. vast, empty, desert wastelands.
iHaunter
Member
That's the paid reception. Curious what the unpaid one is. Probably closer to 68.Starfield's reception:
TrueGrime
Member
One city on a whole planet doesn't seem that much though. How many cities do you think there are on earth?
Oh shit. How many planets in this solar system and beyond have we colonized again IRL?
Laieon
Member
Journey was great.
bender
What time is it?
One city on a whole planet doesn't seem that much though. How many cities do you think there are on earth?
ZoukGalaxy
Member
It won't, because empty is fine, it allows a contrast between dense aera and isolated area, giving a feeling of discovery. We don't need stacked artificial Disneyland POI everywhere, it's boring and exhausting.
Last edited:
Gamer_By_Proxy
Member
I think the onus is on the gamer. I just finished FFXVI which is a long openish game. Now I plan to blast through the Callisto Protocol. Which is linear and short. You should mix it up yourself imo.
JackMcGunns
Member
That’s still the most stupid take
Team Andromeda
Member
Pathetic and many of the planets in space are empty anyways. The game is amazing.
three_muffins
Member
Personally i love big open world games and it rather hurts them if something happens every 15 seconds.
More open world games with varied landscapes and good traversal mechanics.
....and yes, i love AC Valhalla
More open world games with varied landscapes and good traversal mechanics.
....and yes, i love AC Valhalla
Madserb2023
Member
I think with current technology it is better to have a smaller number of areas to explore. Would have personally preferred three or four planets to explore with a Fallout 4 size map on each with relatively equivalent density, but in principle I like where Starfield was was going with this. Like Destiny 1, it has a good foundation. My hope is that by the time they get around to a sequel which will probably be in 10 years, AI will good enough to procedural generate worlds that look as if they were handmade.
TrueGrime
Member
My first 10 hours of the game have been exploring. 9 hours of that was exploring the "main" world where you'll find what might be Bethesda's biggest populated space by a mile. I wanted to explore the planet a little and winded up finding more than I anticipated. Then I finally decided to take a look at the moon of that planet only expecting to find resources but found multiple drilling sites, watched a ship with engine trouble emergency land, ran into other explorers, as well as a drilling site with a cave system. There's more structures on this moon as well, but I stopped playing so my eyes won't fall out of their sockets from the sheer strain of playing so long.
Vast + empty aren't the words I'd use to describe what I've seen so far and I haven't even started the main quest yet or visited more than 5 planets. The distances you can travel within a given area are vast, but there's plenty to find and the randomness of the world around you is surprising.
Lastly, the scope of this game needs fast travel. I cannot begin to imagine how much of a slog it would be without it. Play it, if you can.
Last edited:
Drizzlehell
Banned
I love linear, more focused experiences as much as the next guy, but I don't mind picking up a game with huge, sprawling world either. If you don't like open world games then fine, just don't play them. There's plenty enough of games that will be more fitting to your tastes and needs. I don't see why developers should stop making whatever it is that you don't like, just because you don't like it.
It's also funny how people tend to think that they have to finish stuff in one sitting or over a weekend. If a game was designed to last then yeah, you're probably gonna be playing it for a while, but how is this a problem if you enjoy it? It just means that you're gonna have fun with it for a longer time instead of busting through it in one sitting.
It's also funny how people tend to think that they have to finish stuff in one sitting or over a weekend. If a game was designed to last then yeah, you're probably gonna be playing it for a while, but how is this a problem if you enjoy it? It just means that you're gonna have fun with it for a longer time instead of busting through it in one sitting.
Last edited:
Slicker than your average
Banned
What a weird take. I specifically mention mods; which probably means I'm a PC gamer. Yeah I'll buy an Xbox for emptyfield.
iHaunter
Member
The fact that people were giving Death-Loop 10/10s left and right literally proves this is true.
Last edited:
JackMcGunns
Member
You realize that Deathloop was an exclusive to PlayStation for a while, right? what does that say for other PlayStation only games that are reviewed highly? It would be in Sony's interest for a Paid exclusive to do well, might want to drop that tinfoil hat.
Raven117
Member
That game just kinda sucked. Soulless writing.
RGB'D
Member
Your right it's great. Not good.
simpatico
Member
Not all empty is bad. I think the world creation in TES and Fallout is amazing. Finding those amazing shacks or caves after traversing for a long time is a great feeling. Like you really discovered something. They usually told a story along with having great pick ups. My fear with Starfield on a lot of planets is the traversing is there, but the payoff might be a copy pasted building with only loot and no environmental storytelling. Maybe they managed to get that into the procedural generation. I hope I'm wrong. The Fallout 4 play through I started a couple weeks ago is really taking off. I only played at launch and at DLC release times with minimal mods. Got about 40 mods going this time and I'm enjoying the heck out of it.
iHaunter
Member
Which means what? Doesn't matter if it was timed exclusive for Sony. My point remains the same.
Gambit2483
Member
radewagon
Member
Yeah, I dig open-world-lite. Where you get open world-ish environments where you have freedom to explore but still have many heavily linear segments. The Souls games excel at this. As did pre-BOTW Zelda.
kiphalfton
Member
The Pleasure
Member
I was thinking about Predator when hamboning on Starfield.
Quite true about thousands of planets.
Quite true about thousands of planets.
JackMcGunns
Member
According to your tinfoil hat, EVERY big game will have inflated reviews, and that's why we rely on Metacritic in order to get an average between Inflated, deflated and fair scores. However your silly point is that Starfield deserves a 68 Metacritic "Average"... This is the point where we all laugh at you