Aww man it’s actually a bummer to hear so many people are disliking the game. This has been the first game in a while where I’ve gotten hooked. I love the RPG elements in the game and the story has been brilliant. I’ve enjoyed games recently like Ragnarok and Control but this is the first one where I’m excited to just get back and sucked into the world. The last Bethesda game I played was actually Fallout 3 over a decade ago. It makes sense as Mass Effect is my favorite franchise and this feels like an evolution of that. My perfect game would probably be Starfield with ME: Andromeda combat.
I totally agree. I’m having a blast with this game. Imo, the best thing Beth has ever made (yeah, suck it Morrowind stans)
I think the problem is that this game has a bit of a slow burn. It took a bit for it to open up and make sense for me, more than most Beth games. I think over time the hate cycle will die down and people will get it on a steam sale and finally sink their teeth into it and after a couple of years it’s going to be as beloved as Skyrim is today.
I think a big part of the problem is just hype cycles. People had expectations that were through the roof. They didn't tell you they had seamless transitions to space, and they didn't tell you they had BG3 caliber branching conversation trees (which we're a long way from being able to realistically do outside of a CRPG). But people seemingly expected that.
I watched the direct and we got basically what I expected (though the gunplay feels better than I expected. I definitely felt like VATS was needed in FO4.) It's Bethesda's game design philosophy of a massive world with a bunch of different play styles and a bunch of different quest lines (and smaller single quests) and locations that don't have to be done in any order. You can easily get sidetracked and go down rabbit holes. They iterated on most of their core features and adapted them to the new setting in a really well done way.
I also love the way the skill system brought back the "get better by doing" philosophy of Skyrim with challenges to unlock higher levels, and the story telling is sci fi in more than just skin.
Out of curiosity, have you played BG3 ? It seems that most people who don’t like the game are coming to starfield right from BG3 and those who do have not played it. BG3 is now just the bar that AAA story telling is held to and anyone who has experienced it is having a hard time with the story of other games.
I’m playing Baldurs Gate 3 with friends and Starfield singleplayer. And I am enjoying both.
They aren’t the same game, even though they both rely on story and some aspects of the game are the same (like coming up with your own character and wanting to see how the story affects them)
I’ve only seen one truly uncomfortable close up and it was when a dialogue initiated right in a doorway so the camera got pushed right up the dude’s nose and I could see the empty space in his head lol
I prefer to play 1st person and I’ve always been quite okay with the camera angle for talking to someone, personally. It’s kinda how I would see people I’m talking to face to face IRL, except I don’t have to look down. I only dislike when multiple characters are involved and it does that jump cut to zoom in on a dude across the room. That’s not natural at all.
I loved the game and put 1000hrs in it but I wouldn't recommended it anymore. Its simply past its golden age. Frontier seem to have given up on it. Its pretty much in maintenance mode after they half assed the space leg DLC and mostly ended community goals. They didn't even include walking around in your own ship.
Its now the vibe of a MMO on its last legs. I would love to see it spark back to life, but the devs would have to pull out the big guns.
The worst thing for elite was being made by frontier as they are now. Frontier now is just a tycoon simulator game generator, that’s all they care about. It’s like the FIFA of the tycoon games… spit out another one every year or two and who gives a rats ass about the stuff we already made or haven’t completed.
I loved what elite wanted to be, I hate what the bean counters did to it…
People shit on star citizen for their dev cycle, but elite took the worse route in my opinion: they released a minimally viable product and then intended on building it into something bigger, but got cheap/lazy and just accepted that what they have out is “good enough” so they dumped all the internal ship plans (braben spoke about boarding ships and piracy on foot in a ship, that kind of thing.) They dumped so much of the simulation stuff and just stuck with the BGS… it’s frustrating to see what could have been.
Elite’s biggest issue is that it never really knew what kind of kame it wanted to be. An MMO? There aren’t enough multiplayer features for that. A (mostly) single-player space experience? It’s too shallow with no story, so it won’t satisfy the RPG fans. A space “simulator” where you just have fun flying ships? It’s probably closest to that, except you can’t fly any ship you want, and in fact it takes dozens of hours of grind to be able to switch things out so they’re fresh and you have more fun with the game again. And the simulation is very simplistic and not all that fun either, so it’s not for hardcore simulation fans either.
And because of this approach it has a bad combination of features that not only won’t fully satisfy either of the potential target groups; they also often work against each other. For example the multiplayer component is a dealbraker for me: I want a truly SP game where I can dictate how I play it - where I can mod it, or at least use cheats to find my own pacing, fly different ships on a whim, whatever. But the game simply won’t allow that.
But it’s also not a fully-fledged MMO where you could build (or at least own) systems/planets/bases whatever with your clan and compete against others for … idk, something.
And, again, it’s just not a story game that you could play from start to finish for the storytelling and worlbuilding.
Really sad, because the potential is there to have any (or perhaps even at least two) of those types of games.
The more I’m playing starfield, the more I’m considering it. Starfield is doing a really good job of reinvigorating my excitement for the other games that have done literally everything better in the past lol
I would be impressed if they did it in Gamebryo/Creation Engine and solve the “everything is a cell” problem. I mean, No man’s Sky and Elite Dangerous exist and have shown seem less space travel. One guy with DarkBasic did it in the Evochron games for decades.
This comes off as a hey look look at me I can do it in a cave with a box of scraps but BUGTHESDA can’t in 7 years?!
I think the problem is also that Bethesda doesn’t really “do” vehicles, probably due to engine limitations.
Usually, it’s just horses or “passenger” travel (like when you man the guns in FO4 birds). I guess one could maybe consider power armor in FO4 to be kind of like a “vehicle”, but it works more or less the same as just walking around.
Oh, there is dragon riding in Skyrim, but it’s a mess and you don’t have that much control.
I’m surprised the engine can even handle space combat, honestly. And 360° movement as well, which would have been great for dragon riding in Skyrim. But most of the dragons in TES are dead, so we probably won’t get proper dragon riding in whatever TES: VI is.
(Sidenote about dragon riding/combat: Before Larian delved further into CRPGs, they made a regular third person RPG where you could play as a dragon. It was actually pretty fun. Still didn’t have full control, and it was only in certain sections, but it was entertaining. Divinity II: Director’s Cut, in case anyone’s interested. Don’t know how well it’s aged, but I enjoyed it a few years ago.)
There have been a couple of mods for Fallout 4 and New Vegas to add vehicles. IIRC the only one that wasn’t just an object floating across the ground was in that big expansion mod made by sex perverts, I forget what it’s called. New something?
Yeah, but the SEO rewards anything with the word “Starfield” in it at the moment and there’s enough people seemingly invested in putting down the game at every opportunity that they’ll share this around and drive clicks.
My google news feed is like all Starfield now - getting ridiculous and i’m expecting by tomorrow will be like “Should you make french toast and eat it while playing Starfield?”
It is essentially just a tech demo BUT, I would say they’ve touched on what I wanted from the space travel.
You can take off, fly the ship, point it up, and then boost off into space. That’s fun, that’s what I wanted, and I don’t think it’s really expecting that much.
“It’S NoT ReAlIsTiC”, none of it’s realistic, it’s a video game ffs.
It’s a fun and engaging mechanic that I’d expect in a great space game.
Bethesda’s seeming disdain for anything that could be considered a fun and seamless mechanic is frustrating. And fanboys seemingly have no expectation that Bethesda games should actually get better and improve on their weak areas.
I think Bethesda “fanboys” (like myself) just really like the core experience (warts and all) I play NMS when I want to lose myself in a beautiful seamless scifi setting and i play starfield when my focus is on engaging with faction and character storylines and some campy space encounters. I kinda like how janky bethesda games can be, reminds me of playing tabletop RPGs and all the weird janky shit that happens in those games too. I like that I can be the golden boy of the crimson fleet and still join up with the freestar rangers. I make up a little story for my character and act it out and have a lot of fun doing so.
The only thing I could do without is the loading screens. I don’t mind that landing on a planet isn’t seamless, but i mean… loading screen to get on ship, loading screen to get into space, loading screen to fly to different planet, wait until scan finishes, loading screen to land on planet.
That’s the worse part for me. If it was just a short cut scene for landing on a planet, I think that’d be 100% fine.
I just don’t think it’s good to let a company get away with not improving.
The small improvements they have made in Starfield are alright, but it feels like the bar was set with Skyrim and they can’t even really match something from 12 years ago.
I do not have high hopes for TES VI and I’m half expecting something extremely dated, as based off FO4 and Starfield I think the studio’s best days are behind them at this point.
The small improvements they have made in Starfield are alright, but it feels like the bar was set with Skyrim and they can’t even really match something from 12 years ago.
Or maybe game development is just hard? Why haven't other "better" developers created a game that improves upon Skyrim?
Look at Baldur's Gate 3. It's "small improvements" to the type of game that Larian has been working on for many years at this point.
I'm not really talking about preferences. I'm asking more about the niche that games like Skyrim/Fallout/Starfield fill. If it is so simple to just make "Skyrim but better" or "Starfield but better" then where are all the games from other developers that are just that?
Or from another angle. Where is the Path of Exile for Skyrim?
Yup. People will always bring up some games like Witcher 3 as “better than Skyrim” and in terms of the roleplay elements within the story? Sure. Do the games have some similarities? Sure. They’re both open world RPGs in a medieval fantasy setting. But beyond that, the comparisons fall apart. Somebody just looking for any RPG experience might well prefer Witcher 3 over Skyrim, but somebody looking for another Skyrim experience is not gonna find it in Witcher 3. Same goes for comparisons for NMS and Starfield. Does NMS have seamless planetary flight and Starfield doesn’t? Absolutely. Can you scan plants and wildlife in both? Sure. But, again, beyond that the comparisons fall apart.
I don’t even like skyrim BG3 is objectively a much better game, least Bethesda can do is esspecially with the funding they got from Microsoft is not sell skyrim again but with a space reskin this time
Starfield seems like a pretty stark improvement over Fallout 4’s shortcomings, so I don’t think it is fair to say that they aren’t improving. Just looking at my own playtime, I bailed out of Fallout 4 at the 20 hour mark, but I’m 60 hours into Starfield and haven’t slowed down at all.
Bethesda’s seeming disdain for anything that could be considered a fun and seamless mechanic is frustrating.
Or that the technology available doesn't really make this type of setup reasonable?
Star Citizen is trying to do this and it's been how long with how much money spent?
Would Starfield be a better game if they sacrificed the quests/content/companions and just made a game that was more like Elite Dangerous or No Man's Sky?
That’s fun, that’s what I wanted, and I don’t think it’s really expecting that much.
I mean, CIG has been trying to make a game that does what you want for the last 13 years and they aren't close yet. Maybe it's not as easy as you want it to be?
Star citizen has been able to do "all that" for at least 4 years, and most consider it a glorified tech demo
In Star citizen you can also do all those things with other players too
If you think "they aren't close yet" it might be worth trying it out during one of the free fly events - the only cost is your time to download and play it.
Having an opinion is fine, having an informed opinion is better
If it's just a glorified tech demo, then it doesn't seem like it's able to be compared to a released and completed game? Unless the designation of tech demo means something I'm not aware of.
The first 90 percent of the code accounts for the first 90 percent of the development time. The remaining 10 percent of the code accounts for the other 90 percent of the development time.
I only know of it from memes about it's development, but I would agree from what I know. Scope creep seems to be a thing there. Ambitions are great, until they get in the way of every other aspect of the game lol
If things continue the way it has been, never would be the best estimate of a release date.
Depending on the last time you logged into a session, the current status is between playable and entertaining and nightmare of lag/desync issues making it something most people would want to avoid
In a purely technical sense, if CIG locked the code branch and set 100% of the creative teams to the task, the current system could replicate a Starfield level game and do so in a seamless manner.
It wouldn't be without issues but something I consider plausible
I just don’t see atmospheric entry/exit as being that important to my immersion, yes it was kind of cool the first time you did it in NMS, seven years ago, but it got old fairly quickly even in that game. I’m happy for Starfield to have a more ME like set up and focus on other areas of the game.
Same. It’s cool for maybe 5 times before you just stop caring. Only thing I miss is actually flying around the planet, and that’s purely for finding the best basebuilding spot.
Yeah, was so ambitious, but progress is so painfully slow. If they delivered on what they have said though, the game will be incredible, but I highly doubt that is ever going to happen, I gave up hope almost a decade ago.
Elite Dangerous too. I was really disappointed when I lauched Starfield and learned there wasn't any seamless landing for exploring planets. It was a huge bummer to me.
Elite Dangerous is by far the most fun I've ever had landing and taking off in a space ship. No other game comes even close. It genuinely never got old. The entire docking process was so damn fun with a HOTAS.
Oh wow, I haven’t played since before you could land on planets. My issue with Elite was always feeling like there was exactly nothing to do at all beside mine and be bad at dog fights lol.
I mean, that’s still pretty much the case, it’s just emulated very well, with lots of polish. It’s a lot like Minecraft in that you have to make your own fun, but once you find it it’s a very nice flow. It’s definitely better with friends, and fights with real players especially are fun, and make you realize just how bad you are.
What's fun about getting ganked by overengineered griefers hunting newbies at the first engineering station that the game points you to? I jumped to solo after that. Fuck that.
Likewise, I haven't played any of the expansions. I didn't say it was a perfect game, just that landing and taking off has not been better in any other game. I loved the space stations.
You mean you can now land on planets in Elite Dangerous? A game I own and haven’t played in years? This is the second game I’ve been shown I need to go back to by these conversations. ‘Satisfactory’ popped up yesterday. At this rate I’ll never play Starfield.
You can land on moons in elite dangerous and if you have the expansion you can land on planets and moons with a light atmosphere and walk on foot.
If anyone complained about barren moons everywhere in starfield, just be warned elite has exactly zero interesting planets/moons in the literal billions of star systems it has. Everything is identical minus terrain colors and planetary rings. I loved elite for a while, but as far as exploration goes you really need to like scanning for the sake of scanning.
Starfield has a lot of stuff to explore, even if some of it is repetitive, but elite has maybe 10-15 interesting locations in the entire galaxy…
I’ve been thinking about picking it up. Do you need one or two HOTAS? I already have a pretty expensive racing sim so I’m not trying to go down that rabbit hole (again)
There are plenty of moons/planets with life and interesting things to see, but yes there are a lot of “barren” moons and whatnot. The game tells you what to expect when you click on a given object. It will tell you if there are flora and fauna, what the temperature is, what minerals to expect, that kind of thing. From what I can tell there is almost always some sort of structures/bases on the planets as well.
There’s both too much and too little stuff on planets. The random outposts it spawns are kind of boring but it’s annoying when I want to put down an outpost and the game has randomly put someone else on the best spot. But when I want to get to them, there’s a long walk for pretty much nothing.
Nope, not true in the slightest. There’s actually a lot of variety in biomes, flora, fauna, characteristics - and a lot of them even have multiple biomes with different life per biome.
What i expect people are complaining about is one of two things:
Planet scanning is boring.
On noes generated dungeons
To the first point, I agree planet scanning gets pretty boring if that’s all you do for 5 hours straight. But there’s a TON of content in this game. Switch it up. Once you’re done with a mission, go explore the planet you ended up on and scan the things. Or don’t. Who cares. Planet scanning isn’t necessary at all. I think a lot of people see that planet scanning gives you a ton of credits and xp, go grind that one thing, and then complain that it’s boring.
On the second point, yes every planet will have a bunch of locations that are like “Cave” or “Covered Crater” or “Abandoned Facility” and such. A lot of them are small resource troves, but the facilities actually feel pretty handbuilt - if you check them out. But I think a lot of people see “Abandoned [whatever]” and think “oh autogenerated content, meh” without checking it out. I certainly have been guilty of that. But every time I actually decide to go in, I’m surprised at how much fun I actually have in those environments, how much environmental storytelling is actually there, and how well built the levels are. I feel like they hand built a bunch of these or components of them and an engine puts it all together.
The reality is that every Beth game ever has used procedural generation. And they’ve been getting better at it with each game. Skyrim felt less empty that Oblivion. Starfield feels less empty, overall anyway, than Skyrim. The handbuilt hub planets are way busier than any location in Skyrim. The procedural worlds feel more empty than skyrim for sure, but it makes plenty of sense, theres still plenty to do, and the amount of planets makes it feel less empty. And overall, there’s a LOT more handbuilt and story content than skyrim - by several factors imo.
I’ll also point out that the procedural content is just flavor. You don’t need to engage in it but it’s there if you want it. This game has a TON of handbuilt content - more than any other Beth game. The faction quests feel like a full game in their own right. The side quests are plentiful and quite deep. Complaining about procedural content in this game feels like complaining about the number of leaves on a tree.
You can complain a lot about Starfield, but it has some of the most aggressive fast travelling options available to date. If you are walking a lot, it means you don’t understand the mechanics.
You can literally look at a waypoint and teleport to it.
I went from inside a dungeon, and teleported all the way to the commercial district on a different planet in a different system to sell everything in like 10 seconds.
Yeah - of course games are hard - but all he did was rough out a planet-to-space experience in Unreal Engine with a Starfield aesthetic. If he started trying to build an actual game on it… Well an 8 year timeline doesn’t seem crazy.
And this whole conversation overlooks one of the major complaints a player would have of Bethesda did the same thing.
Entering an atmosphere changes the physics and those physics are different for all sorts of reasons on every planetary body for every ship. From gravity to atmospheric density the ship would fly differently on every one and that ignores the fact that ships are near enough to infinite in configuration in this game due to the builder.
If Bethesda did this, players would be complaining it wasn’t realistic enough.
Can you give me an example of a game that solved the above problems? I’ve never seen a game that has that issue resolved for any ship configuration that could exist.
While I had forgetten about Kerbal space program, I would point out two major things about that comparison. KSP is entirely about the ship flight. That is the entire games purpose. And second, when I played it a few years after release, it was hardly stable and wouldn’t be a good representation with the atmospheric density discussion. As I remember it that problem was largely ignored.
I’ll grant you the first point, the whole game is centered on space travel simulation, but it’s also the only game I’ve seen that handles what you’re describing. You definitely need to consider atmospheric density though. Managing your speed, angle of attack, and parachutes to avoid overheating is one of the major skills you learn while playing. Some are Earth like (Kerbin), other are thinner (Moho), and some are surrounded in an atmosphere so thick that it makes any return mission a huge achievement (Eve).
It’s been a long while since I’ve played it, so I had forgotten most things.
But the focus of a game makes a big difference in what features exist. I’m honestly not sad Bethesda skipped entry and landing. The game has enough content without it if you follow the quests, and if rather they acknowledge it’s too difficult and finally release a stable game.
That’s not an unsolvable issue, and you can always handwave it away for simplicity with some lore. The ships are already magics, like any star ship, so you can just say that the motors and calibration compensate for different planets and whatnot so the ship is easy to use everywhere.
I mean, to be fair, Starfield doesn’t do it well either. In the 15 hours I played, especially toward the latter end, I ran into plenty of texture pop-in, bad culling, bodies without heads and arms, heads and arms without bodies, bad shading patches, t-posing, stutter, lots of other goofy shit. And granted, my rig’s not the best but I’m playing on medium with a 9600K, 3070, 32GB RAM, and the game’s installed on a Samsung 870 SATA.
I think the bigger deal with Bethesda’s engine is that it’s built to be very easy for designers to iterate on, which is why it is also so easy for users to mod. They trade a lot of efficiency for scripting systems and level editors that let them whip up sprawling open spaces in a short amount of time, and fill them with dynamic systems like NPC routines and tracking thousands of physics-enabled props. This is probably also why their games are prone to buggy behavior.
Building all of the systems Starfield has at its disposal into Unreal would probably take years, and I’m not convinced the results would be any better.
A loading screen lets you load different areas of the game discreetly and make the game performative. This is especially important as Starfield is a single player game, it’s not hosted on a server or anything so it can’t distribute resource load that way, its all happening client side on the player’s system. They would have to simulate the entire world on their PC alone or develop a way to stream the content out dynamically and seamlessly.
That’s not how any of it works.
We have had level streaming in Unreal for like a decade. Sure it’s more complex to do things this way, but in general the way it works is that when you approach some area (are some distance from a planet or part of a planet) the next chunk of the world loads in, together with any NPCs and logic and everything else - it’s basically a self contained map, just seamlessly integrated with other maps. There is no meaningful performance hit if done correctly. You certainly don’t simulate everything all the time.
Additionally, all the other games mentioned (NMS, Elite, Star Citizen) also have basically all of the processing on the client side. The servers don’t help the clients in any way; they only store primitive states for gameplay purposes, but all the simulation and whatnot is done on the client. And they still manage to be better optimized.
It’s more like they really want to use their own engine (for many good reasons) and it’d probably be really hard (if not near impossible without a complete rewrite) to add such a fundamental feature to their existing engine. Even if it wasn’t that hard it’d probably still cost a shitton of developer time and they were spending it elsewhere.
This is basically what No Man’s Sky did. When Bethesda took their crappy RPG engine and mocked up interplanetary travel using loading screens and then started writing quests and storylines, NMS focused on building a very good engine that allowed you to go from surface to air to space to interplanet / stellar while mostly ignoring the rest of gameplay and storytelling.
And not to be too hard on No Man’s Sky given the resource differential, but ultimately all it is is one really rock solid system thats not quite a full game surrounded by a lot of hollow feeling stuff to kinda flesh it out on paper. Ultimately Starfield has way sharper hooks almost immediately simpy because while it has a relatively crappy engine and at time frustrating amounts of loading screens and limitations, they spent more time writing content and dialogue that makes the universe feel actually alive and rich, and polishing each individual system until it’s fun.
I think The Outer Worlds is also worth comparing to as Obsidian is even farther down the same route as Bethesda imho, making a much smaller universe that feels even less free than Starfield but having even better writing and I would argue it’s possibly the best game of the three though I have to withhold my judgement on Starfield until I atleast finish the main quests.
I’m no gaming expert or Bethesda fanboy, but didn’t someone the other day confirm that there is actual space travel in the game, it just takes days to get to another planet?
The engine works by having square areas of playable in-game sections called cells. Unless the devs created enough cells between planets, and have them in the same world space, for a player to travel in that’s not possible.
I am curious and exited to hear what tricks they have used.
Theres nothing in the engine reqiring to fill every cell between two cells. Might as well be empty space, or cells with random generated terrain.
Also how are they doing the ship interior cell? Loading a cell without removing the old? Why aren’t they using the same thing for interior windows in houses then?
That sounds exactly like the old Morrowind loading system. It was relatively seamless at the time for traveling about outdoors, sans the mini loading between these cells. It used to take a few seconds back in the day it was released but with modern SSDs it takes a fraction of a second.
Oblivion and Skyrim made this for the most part invisible. But loading times for indoor transitions still existed.
I see. In that case I fully expect someone to make a ‘open cities’ mod for systems. If you can reach the billboards it should be possible to create a transition to planet space. Maybe.
But then we’d need something for faster flight inside a system. Like E:D does for example. I Won’t spend 7hrs traveling from planet to planet just for the immersion :D
Well you can already fast travel between planets. I’d be okay with the happy medium of intersystem travel if it meant I could actually land on a planet. The problem is the way Bethesda has set it up, the planets themselves aren’t real, there’s just a handful of zones around POIs.
You can fly in space towards the planets you can see. When you get there, you won't be able to land and will be able to fly straight through the planet itself.
Planets outside of the fast travel menu aren't really planets
I think this is an accurate way to put it. I happen to like that game but if it's not what you were expecting or you're tired of it you're not going to like the game.
I have to say the best change from FO4 is ditching the voiced protagonist. That was a big mistake at the time.
What a wierd take, given that people STILL play Skyrim, Morrowind, and Fallout games in droves to this day. And that there are a ton of YouTubers that have made careers exclusively off of Beth lore and build videos and such.
Also given the post is about the game shifting to “mostly positive” on Steam. Which means the vast majority of reviews on steam are actually positive. And a lot of the negative reviews have to do with performance and technical issues, not the gameplay itself.
Also the fact that other “open world story-based shooters with rpg and crafting mechanics” are actually really popular - you know like Cyberpunk, or Mass Effect, or RDR2, or arguably, Jedi Survivor.
If you don’t like Beth games, that’s fine. They’re not for everyone. But it doesn’t mean your opinion is universal.
If this game had dropped in 2016, I’d be ecstatic. But… I played Elden Ring & it felt a bit like a modded Skyrim, that was better than Skyrim. Now, Bethesda games feel stale.
You must have such a refined taste to not waste more than 90 minutes on starfield. May I recommend Elden Ring or Baldur’s Gate 3 for a discerning individual such as yourself.
Because they’ve been making the same game just with different settings for 20+ years and it been overused. You may have fun with the game if you didn’t play the last few Bethesda games or you still enjoy that type but it is stale for most who have played fallout 3, nv, 4 and the elder scrolls games for most of their lives. There’s just nothing new.
If you can already know the game is boring after 1.5 hours, the game is indeed not for you.
I thought it was yet an other boring scifi shooter, but gave it a try after seeing someone else playing it. Then I saw how much of a Star Trek TNG vibes it had.
I have played last epoch for hundreds of hours as well, and I will say I really enjoy it. It’s my go-to ARPG because the skill system feels so damn good. It isn’t the mess of nodes that PoE is, and it isn’t the very braindead level of skills that Diablo 3 had (haven’t played 4 because blizzard). Pretty much every skill has its own skill tree, and you can often make skills cast other skills or find awesome synergies and the game excels at giving you the power to make your own build and have it actually work.
Other notes, the crafting system is absolutely fantastic. You will end up crafting all the time, not just at endgame and it feels so good, and is very easy to understand without being braindead.
Most of the endgame content is great, but it just needs more and extra of it. They have a few dungeons that do different specific things, so you don’t necessarily go there to farm, you go there because you want some feature or thing that place has. It’s a really fun system.
I will say at 0.9.2 there are still some issues with multiplayer sync, so if you want to wait til 1.0 to play it with bros then understandable. What a fun game IMO though.
pcgamesn.com
Najnowsze