Amazing people make articles on… Nothing, essentially? It’s just encumbrance, right?
I was expecting it would at least go into detail and explain or compare how many items or units of weight you can carry, if it slows you down gradually or if it pretty much freezes you on the spot, differences with previous well known franchise games but no, none of that either.
I love how in Starfield your encumbrance and movement are aided or harmed by planetary gravity.
On a low gravity world I have had over 800/200 and run along with no issues. While on a planet with 1.6 or higher and you really can’t ignore the slowdown. You just can’t fast travel, but you don’t stop like in Skyrim, so I think that’s a positive step in the right direction.
That's not even realistic. I know that Starfield isn't meant to be a simulator, but if you put in something to try and be "real", you should do it right. Gravity would affect the weight of something, but the inertia is still the same. Moving and stopping a big object in space with no gravity at all is still hard to do.
I wasn’t planning to get the game because of the 3 player thing but I already knew that… why are people buying it then getting mad about it? Is the steam store page just not clear enough about it? In which case, fair.
I don’t think it’s obtuse or anything, this stuff isn’t hard to find out before buying. I think it’s probably closer to people being afraid of fromsoft doing something different, but don’t have words to articulate it, so they express it in other ways.
I wouldn’t hold it against them. You and I are in a place where we know the value in looking this stuff up, and we know the industry. There are a lot more people out there who don’t, and others who still haven’t made the mistake they need to in order to learn it.
Oh for sure, I don’t think less of people for these kind of situations. More at the state where it’s unfortunate but also interesting. We keep seeing these situations happen with varying amounts of justification from people, it’s interesting to try to understand what’s happening.
The store page is kinda confusing. I don't think the line "Join forces with other players to take on the creeping night and the dangers within featuring 3-player co-op." along with both singleplayer and co-op listed as valid playing styles is something most reasonable people would interpret the way that it really is: be exactly 3 players with external voice chat available because all other ways of playing the game will suck hard.
They've been sorta honest about that in interviews and such but those don't have the same reach as their huge marketing campaign.
Isn’t this the rule with every civ launch? They’re all somewhat half-baked on launch (although 7 admittedly looks quite a bit less baked than the others).
That said, I feel Civ formula seems to be in decline. To me Call To Power was peak civ ( yeah, fight me ), but while 3,4 and 5 were great “second-bests”, I couldn’t really get into 6 and I’m not really planning on playing 7 ( not with this 3-age format anyway ).
Yeah releasing an unfinished game without any exciting new changes and adding more dlc each iteration has been killing new civ releases and burning many long term fans who get hyped for a new civ. Paradox, Ubisoft, MicroProse, etc pull the same predatory monetization shit and when the price tag is 70 USD their half baked, missing ingredients cake just doesn’t look appetizing to most.
At a certain point they’re beating a dead horse. Outside of graphical updates (which I thought the cartoon-y look of the leaders in civ 6 was a huge downgrade), the core gameplay is still mostly the same throughout the series.
I watched a video on civ 7 and it seems like they really tried to shake up a lot in the game, I think for this reason that they needed to try something fresh to stay relevant. But really this is to its detriment rather than benefit.
I’m not sure if the three age thing is to “even the playfield” on those marathon long sessions when one civ runs away with the ball so to speak, but really that’s one of my favorite parts of the series. Like it’s awesome to take out some cavemen with navy seals or launch nukes when everyone is cowering in fear. If everything gets massively reset, then why even try to get ahead? I’ve not played the game so there could be more nuance but that’s my general impression.
This is likely a patch which blocks certain kernel hooks
It’s actually good for both Linux and Windows gaming ultimately because maybe Ubisoft will stop doing stupid anti piracy or anti cheating things that can break your system
When Destiny started, Bungie was tied to Activision and whenever there were design decisions people hated, they blamed Activision for them.
Then Destiny 2 launched, Bungie was able to buy out the Activision contract, and everything went to shit.
Turned out, Activision had been the voice of reason the whole time.
Bungie started eliminating story missions, vaulting content people had paid for, including a full 1/2 of the base game and multiple expansions. They sunset gears and weapons people spent hundreds of hours earning and curating because they claimed they didn’t know how to develop scenarios for them any more.
A full Sony takeover would be a huge improvement over what Bungie has done since separating from Activision.
Walpeach and waldaisy would’ve been real cool actually. And then we could have a upside down world type style Mario/wario game where walpeach saves wario
A step back in what sense? Technically? Yeah probably. Starfield is the first Bethesda game to have working ladders(one slight sort of exception in Fallout 4) lol. But in terms of story, and world building, I think it’s fair to say Starfield is much ahead in that.
That’d be more meaningful if Bethesda had ever managed to create a story with any worth. Sometimes the bones of a decent story are there, but the execution is usually amateur hour.
In my opinion Starfield has the best story Bethesda has written. Not entirely saying much, but the main story and the side stories are at least more interesting and less predictable that Fallout 4 and Skyrim quests.
Assuming you haven’t already, you should give Morrowind a shot. If you can get past the dated graphics and mechanics, the story is by far Bethesda’s best work imho.
Yeah, I have played Morrowind(well actually TES3MP) and in terms of flexibility and story Morrowind is definitely great, my issue is that my least favorite aspect of Bethesda games are the tedious winding dungeons(why NV and Starfield are my favorite because they have the least of that) and Morrowind unfortunately has a lot. One aspect of Morrowind that I really enjoyed actually though, was the opportunity to be given information to actually take notes on(I wrote down directions quest givers gave for example) and Starfield was the only other Bethesda game I’ve played with a taste of that. Although unfortunately much less.
Man, feels like we played totally different games regarding Morrowind. Most of Morrowind’s dungeons are the smallest of any Bethesda game, and honestly it had the least amount of quests that even sent you to dungeons. Still, if you found them tedious you found them tedious. (anychance you installed other mods besides MP?)
All the same, I think the story is by far Bethesda’s magnum opus. (I mean Bethesda proper, since New Vegas was Obsidian and all)
And while I find exploration in Starfield to be extremely tedious, I will say they employed a “Skyrim/FO4” style sensibility where each dungeon should roughly take 10-20 minutes, making for nice bite sized chunks of gameplay.
I completely agree that NV had stellar use of dungeons that almost never overstayed their welcome.
Though if you want real tedium, in both winding dungeons and exploration, give Daggerfall unity a try. Great game, but my god does it go on and on and on.
So someone will take his mods and make actual pirate versions of them. If he's trying to Streisand it, couldn't have done a better job. I don't see it being very profitable, though...
ign.com
Ważne