I mean, the only thing that’s really needed is the standard access to the creation kit. After that, I think modders can polish it up to competency, although flying to planets might be outside the abilities of the engine. I think anyone still hoping Starfield is going to be a good space game need to stop dreaming and go back to Elite/No Mans Sky/Waiting for Star Citizen, but there were some really elaborate mods for New Vegas and Skyrim back in the day. Maybe someone dedicated and talented enough could even fix that.
The trick is that they want paid mods so they can do nothing and get a decade of profit. Consider that many of the mods on Nexus have millions of unique downloads.
Even if they charge 3 bucks a mod and get a third of it, that's tens of millions of dollars with zero effort on their part.
But the primary issue is that the current modding framework they're pushing onto Skyrim doesn't support framework mods, so none of the big mods Skyrim is known for, and have kept it alive so long, could happen.
And that people will hopefully riot about paid mods again. The Skyrim framework flew under the radar because of clever timing. There’s no way it goes un-noticed on their newest flagship game.
If you want a laptop that’s surprisingly not bad for the price look at the asus g14s. They go on sale every so often. Slap an extra stick of ram in there and you’re golden. Make sure to get gHelper from GitHub to get rid of all the asus bloat ware.
If the modding community likes Starfield it should really help with the emptiness of space at least. I can imagine the idea of just building an entire quest line in your selected planet would be nice for avoiding mod conflicts
I’ve heard secondhand the people working on a coop mod, after making one for Skyrim, gave up on it after deciding the game is just bad and uninteresting.
I know that happened but I’d need to see more of a consensus from modders before I call it a wash. If modders continue to add to the game, it will likely become more appealing and the actual foundation to add mods seems pretty decent.
I already liked the game since I’m not the typical bethesda fan, “their” only game I finished was New Vegas, liked the characters and story and didn’t care that planets were empty since I played Daggerfal Unity. But I don’t think they can grab that explorer fanbase again, they are just against procedural generation in general, they probably wanted Outer Worlds but bigger.
But I don’t think they can grab that explorer fanbase again, they are just against procedural generation in general, they probably wanted Outer Worlds but bigger.
I don’t think that’s true. Elite Dangerous is one of my favorite games and it’s procedurally generated. I think the issue is that that’s not exactly what Starfield is.
When you “land” in Starfield (outside a handcrafted city or similar), you land in a procedurally generated box made just for you. It isn’t repeatable by anybody but you. Other people who “land” in the same spot will not see what you saw, they get their own procedurally generated box. The contents of the box are similar (the terrain is the right color, the flora and fauna are the same). If you were to see something particularly cool in your box (although I never did when I was playing the game) - ie: “unusually tall mountain range” or “unusually deep valley” - you can’t tell someone “hey go to coordinates x,y and check this out!” You CAN do this in Elite Dangerous. All worlds, all settlements - everything is the same for everyone, and if you explore through it all and you find something interesting, you can share it with people.
In Starfield, your box always contains an uninteresting/unremarkable patch of terrain and magically, literally everywhere you land, there are structures and ships within walking distance - none of which anyone can get to but you.
There is literally no WAY to explore. Everywhere you land, it’s just another box and it will always contain the same variation on the same things. That isn’t exploration. Exploration implies things that exist whether you are there or not and which can be found by someone if they look long enough.
I think you’ve excellently captured the difference here. I didn’t get heavily into Elite Dangerous, but on one of my longest journeys, I scanned a few things that no-one had ever scanned before. I didn’t discover any awesome looking space phenomena that would be worth sharing (at least, none that hadn’t been discovered before), but the prospect that I could was exciting.
Even just the idea that my name would be on other people’s screens if they came and scanned the same things I did, because we were all sharing the same world.
This is the most precise presentation about what I hated about Starfield. I gave up about 5ish hours in when the 3rd planet I landed on to explore was literally the same as the first two. Maybe it was just me, maybe it was unlucky lottery, but the fast travel to multiple boxes with the same ingredients shaken up slightly was enough to make me walk away.
If people liked it, I’m very happy for them, it just didn’t do it for me and I feel like it’s starting to be diminishing returns with Bethesda after Fallout 3/Skyrim (though I’m sure someone will correct me with an older drop off point).
If I remember it correctly, everything in E:D is procedurally generated, but every player has the same seed so it generates everything identically. That’s how they keep the installation a manageable size.
Yes and this is what Starfield doesn’t do. Starfield doesn’t actually have whole planets generated by a shared seed. Planets in Starfield are just unlimited sources of randomly generated playboxes. Since the planets don’t actually exist, they can’t properly be said to be explorable.
For anyone interested in this topic, there is a super great video that explains the difference between procedural generation and random generation and how a tiny amount of data can be used to generate extremely complex things.
I can recommend the Acer Nitro 5 series. Have it for a few years now. The main drawbacks are
Portability - You will run into this issue a lot with gaming laptops. But the Nitro series is probably one the lower end when it comes to portability. Especially if you go with the 17 inch screen. It's heavy and big.
Speakers - the newest series apparently upgraded them, but the one I have has terrible built in speakers. I use a headset anyhow while playing. So doesn't concern me. But it just can't be used to watch movies together in bed.
Fan noise - It can get very noisy, especially during gaming session. If you are using a headset, you aren't noticing it. But it can be distracting to others in the room.
Batter life - It's just bad, even if you aren't gaming. But again, while playing you are usually plugged in anyway.
Overall none of the big issues affect me. But could be a dealbreaker for others.
The big pros:
Available in 17 inch - which was a must for me.
Decent cooling - Just make sure you get a 2021 or later model.
Easy to upgrade internal storage & ram - you can put 2 additional SSDs inside. And even upgrading the ram is super easy. This also means they aren't charging absurd amounts for upgrading the stock variant from 256gb to 512 or even 1tb.
Performance for the price - It's not a end of the line model but for the price you will get decent performance.
I have an Acer Nitro 5 too and I would recommend against it on fan noise alone. Saying that it's very loud is an understatement. It's absurd how loud it is even under light loads. It's like sitting in a jet on take-off.
My wife has an Asus ROG and it is much, much quieter when gaming than mine is when idling. So, I'd say get the ROG, not the Nitro.
so like a lot of people will suggest a desktop pc, and if thats feasible for u i would go for it, they just tend to have less issues in general and r easier to troubleshoot. i don’t know much about steam deck but it seems pretty neat and def costs way less than a gaming laptop. also those games don’t seem all that intensive to run? the freezing probs isn’t a hardware issue.
reddit.com
Ważne