• 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'm worried that Starfield is gonna suck and here's my main reason for it

Drizzlehell

Banned
Fallout 4

Allow me to elaborate.

In my humble opinion, Bethesda Game Studios hasn't delivered a decent game since Skyrim. So, it's difficult for me to picture how they could pull off a miracle now. Fallout 4, for instance, was riddled with so many absurdities that it eventually detracted from my overall enjoyment of the game. Once the initial honeymoon period was over, I grew to dislike it quite a bit. The crafting mechanics were beyond annoying, as they forced me to spend hours on end scavenging for materials just to upgrade my guns. The base building aspect was an unnecessary and tedious chore, with clunky controls that made the whole thing feel like a waste of time. Despite getting constant alerts about settlers needing help and Preston's relentless nagging, nothing significant seemed to happen regardless of how much I ignored those mechanics. The effort expended on these useless features could have been better spent on other aspects of the game that were more enjoyable.

The game's repeated dungeons also grated on me after a while, leaving me wondering whether Bethesda had only hired one interior decorator to work on the game. I mean, it was tolerable in Skyrim because it was limited to caves and tombs within a single province. But in Fallout 4, it was just nonsensical.

As for the characters, story, and dialogue, none of them stood out as particularly impressive. The stripped-down dialogue trees were an utter letdown, sacrificing interactivity for a fully voice-acted and boring main character.
It's safe to say that I'm not a fan of that game. And let's not even mention the travesty that was Fallout 76.

Regarding Starfield, I have decided to temper my expectations. The most likely outcome is that it'll be another Fallout 4 - dazzling at first, visually stunning, and epic in scope and scale, but eventually, it will exhaust me with tedious and pointless gameplay mechanics.

What I truly hope for is a game that's more like Fallout 3 or Skyrim, where exploration and discovery made for a primary gameplay loop. The sense of adventure I experienced when I could simply pick a direction and happen upon engaging quests, intriguing locations, and amusing characters, with the same heavily accented voice actor turning up around every corner, is what made those games so enjoyable. However, seeing the same aggravating base building mechanics for ship modifications in Starfield footage made me lose hope because I could already envision myself scavenging for resources to afford upgrades again. It looks like Fallout 4 all over again.

On a more positive note, it looks like the dialogue trees are making a comeback, and the space setting may inject some fresh energy into the formula and make exploration enjoyable again, so at least that's something to look forward to. Now, honestly, I don't want this game to be bad. In fact, a space sandbox game like Freelancer or Elite but with meaningful story-driven quests and NPC dialogue frankly sounds like the game of my dreams. But as I explained, with Bethesda's more recent track record, I am very careful about getting my hopes up about this game, as there is some evidence already that at least some of the things that turned me off from their recent games may be coming back here too.
 

Punished Miku

Gold Member
I said this 3 years ago.

https://www.neogaf.com/threads/the-fate-of-bethesda-game-studios-2002-2020.1567787/

Basically they were the first to hit it big with open world RPGs. For a whole console gen, no one else could really do it (PS3 / 360). Then all of last gen, everyone else caught up. Multiple publishers totally re-invented their engines and struggled through the learning pains. FFXV, Dragon's Dogma, even Metal Gear Solid V.

During this time, Bethesda stayed mostly the same and didn't seem to reinvent anything. They were never the best graphically, or in terms of combat, or in terms of animations. They had their open world trick, and it was getting less and less unique. Meanwhile, studios known for action games, top tier combat, top tier animations, all learned to do open world.

Nothing I've seen of Starfield looks that different from Fallout 4, so that's pretty much what I'm expecting. The thing that makes me a bit optimistic is the setting and the idea of playing as mostly realistic astronauts. Astronauts are not known for graceful combat and ballet style animations. They can barely move. The emphasis of the game will hopefully be on quality writing, lore, and RPG elements. They have the potential to pull all that off without reinventing the wheel.

In the future, they will have to learn new skills in the areas of combat, animations, etc. comparable to the growing pains other studios went through last gen learning open world.

TLDR: I'm expecting a Bethesda game similar to their past games. It will hopefully have cool exploration and story as the driving areas.
 

feynoob

Banned
Grow up people. It's Bethesda. Stop overreacting.
200.gif
 

Ev1L AuRoN

Member
Hope not, it looks like it will be yet another 30fps experience and the graphics are ok but nothing worthy of the exclusive blockbuster status.
I bank on the story and mechanics, this is where the game really needs to nail. I agree with you that since Skyrim, the output of Bethesda RPG's aren't that encouraging IMHO, but I have faith they can deliver this time, I'm just not overly confident given the recent trends, but I'm really rooting for this project, I'll be there day one to try it.
 
Last edited:

Dirk Benedict

Gold Member
I want to see system requirements. That will be the fuse starter. I've seen some placeholder shit, but watch it end up being a 3090 or some shit(phew) for Ultra 4k.
 
If its an actual RPG, it'll be fine but if it's more of a shooter with light RPG elements like fallout 4, it could be a problem. Atleast they got rid of voiced character. That's a good start.
 

Pelta88

Member
I'm worried because they haven't shown the game running on a Series X. Why? Because when publishers jump through hoops not to show a game running on console, it's always a catastrophe. To the point where I've learned not to support any game that isn't showcased on console.
 
Last edited:

Mephisto40

Member
I'm going to play it at launch for sure, but you would have to be pretty short sighted to expect it to work perfectly at launch

If any game is going to be full of bugs, it's going to be Starfield
 

kikkis

Member
I played fallout 4 for awhile. It's just not for me. Todd Howard is completely clueless about gunplay and surrounding things like level design and enemy types. Game was just constantly picking up shit off the ground for base building I couldn't care less about.

Biggest red flag is the delay. How can game studio with howard proudly claiming having 30 years of experience under their belts be two months before release like sheeeeit, there is atleast a year worth of work left be done.
 

MiguelItUp

Member
I don't think it is going to suck, but it probably won't live up to the hype.
Yeah, that's where I'm at. I feel like it'll be appreciated by some, and others may find it lacking. But I'm sure it'll do well in the end.

Man, these threads about Starfield failing/bombing/etc. are starting to multiple, lol.

With FO4, I legit can't remember if I completed it. It's always a passing question that I can't answer. I beat FO3, I beat NV, but with FO4 I really don't remember. I remember rushing through dialogue and the main story because I just wanted to complete it, but I don't remember if I was successful, lol.

I still thought FO4 was a fine and fun game, even if it paled compared to FO3 and NV for a variety of reasons. Hell, even Skyrim.
 
Last edited:

feynoob

Banned
I'm worried because they haven't shown the game running on a Series X. Why? Because when publishers jump through hoops not to show a game running on console, it's always a catastrophe. To the point where I've learned not to support any game that isn't showcased on console.
They will showcase the gameplay during their showcase.
 

Skifi28

Member
I'm not worried at all. Then again, the game didn't seem interesting to me from the start so it's probably that.
 
Last edited:

feynoob

Banned
Yeah, that's where I'm at. I feel like it'll be appreciated by some, and others may find it lacking. But I'm sure it'll do well in the end.

Man, these threads about Starfield failing/bombing/etc. are starting to multiple, lol.
Bethesda fans will like it, non Bethesda people won't like it.

It will be a mix of Skyrim and fallout.

I wonder how much exploration do we have to do.
 

legacy24

Member
if it's 30 fps on consoles that's going to suck for a lot of people and get a lot of the same negative press as redfall. I know some people personally don't care but it still paints negative press before launch
 

Varteras

Gold Member
Yeah, that's where I'm at. I feel like it'll be appreciated by some, and others may find it lacking. But I'm sure it'll do well in the end.

Man, these threads about Starfield failing/bombing/etc. are starting to multiple, lol.

Bound to happen when Arkane shit the bed with Redfall. Both studios were hyped up. Both studios had their games delayed. Both had criticism about what was shown. So now, people are wondering.
 

Diseased Yak

Gold Member
As someone who has spent hundreds of hours each with Fallout 3, Fallout 4, and every Elder Scrolls game since ES II, I'm perfectly ok with Starfield being just like them, only in space and perhaps with a good story.

I definitely see where, though, if you didn't like that Bethesda formula, Starfield might not be for you. It'll be interesting to see what, if any, changes they made to their already successful formula.
 

HTK

Banned
All I know is that after Redfall there is added pressure for them to deliver, I think they know that. Starfield was already delayed by a year so it should in good shape right...right...right?

But then again....

Halo was delayed...Redfall was delayed...but yet again here we are...
 

Drizzlehell

Banned
I dont know how you go from Fallout 4 was good but disappointing to Starfield will SUCK.
As I listed in the OP, Fallout 4 had quite a lot of problems that far outweigh the few good things that I liked about it. I already grew tired of it playing that game, so if Starfield will turn out to be more of the same then it's pretty much dead on arrival for me.
 

Sethbacca

Member
It will probably have the typical Bethesda jank but be a good time. I wouldn't expect it to be great on day one though. I suspect this will be one of those requiring numerous patches to get better in typical Bethesda fashion.
 

Drizzlehell

Banned
As someone who has spent hundreds of hours each with Fallout 3, Fallout 4, and every Elder Scrolls game since ES II, I'm perfectly ok with Starfield being just like them, only in space and perhaps with a good story.

I definitely see where, though, if you didn't like that Bethesda formula, Starfield might not be for you. It'll be interesting to see what, if any, changes they made to their already successful formula.
Fallout 3 and New Vegas are some of my favorite games of all time but it was only with Fallout 4 where it started going in a direction that I didn't like. All of the innovation introduced in this game served to make the formula worse than it was before so naturally I'm a bit worried that they just completely lost their touch. Especially if you look at what happened with F76, where things got so much worse for a whole different set of reasons.
 
Last edited:

XXL

Member
I don't think it will suck, but I do think it will be released in a fucked up state or be delayed until 2024.
 

Drizzlehell

Banned
I just realized that I should probably write "I'm worried that Starfield is going to be disappointing" in the thread title instead of "is gonna suck", to make it sound less abrasive, but why can't you edit thread titles, lol.

Anyway, in case any mod sees this, could you please edit the title? Thanks.
 

DosGamer

Member
Its Bethesda... even if the game is pure awesomeness... there is really no need to play it right away.. just wait for the plethora of reissues and anniversary editions that will drop.
 

XXL

Member
I just realized that I should probably write "I'm worried that Starfield is going to be disappointing" in the thread title instead of "is gonna suck", to make it sound less abrasive, but why can't you edit thread titles, lol.

Anyway, in case any mod sees this, could you please edit the title? Thanks.
This. Title change would be more appropriate.
 

DosGamer

Member
Its Bethesda... even if the game is pure awesomeness... there is really no need to play it right away.. just wait for the plethora of reissues and anniversary editions that will drop.


I guess what I am trying to say is ... Is it really the system seller? Is it going to be the game that saves MS?
 

saintjules

Member
There's so much hype/talk for this game and I am failing to see the reason for it. The hype levels remind me of Avowed and that even has less gameplay footage.

Like, what does it make it stand out beyond other titles in the FPS genre?
 
Last edited:

reksveks

Member
Let me see the space combat and how we can fight those battles.

Gun combat is going to serviceable at best but fortunately that's not what I come to BGS games for.
 

Puscifer

Member
Grow up people. It's Bethesda. Stop overreacting.
200.gif
Seriously, Bethesda has been the same since day 1. A main story that's like 7 hours long but the open world is so interesting that finishing the main story is basically coming to the finality of your playthrough, however long that is. After 150 hours of Skyrim I finished the game.

See: every Bethesda game, Starfield has no reason to deviate. There's NOTHING, and I mean NOTHING like a Bethesda game.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom