I think that 25% would be comprised of people that bought the game and haven’t had much time to play, or use console command right away and disable achievements. Speedrunners, modmakers, and general hackers would use console commands liberally as they should be the same as Fallout/Elder Scrolls games.
Yeah, for a Bethesda game, 25% of people using mods right out of the gate is frankly totally believable.
And while starfield isn’t perfect, people not finishing the first mission would hardly be an indictment against the game itself, who judges if a game is worth playing in the first mission? Usually - and especially in games like this - the first mission has practically nothing to do with the standard gameplay
I wouldn't be surprised if it's higher; there are people who mod who will also go out of their way to get achievements and people who don't care about achievements at all.
I personally love the game for what it is. There's no one else out there making anything all that similar to a Bethesda RPG. I do think that some portion saw the performance and set it aside for that reason, though. Especially gamepass people.
I definetely fall under that umbrella, I’ve got mods downloaded, but didn’t bother with the achievement mod. I downloaded my mods after the first mission though.
I’m enjoying starfield for sure, but I think it does have a fair few faults, though I’ll be the first to admit that a lot of them are subjective. For instance I can’t stand bullet sponge enemies and the bullet sponge is strong with starfield. Drives me crazy when I can literally empty an entire magazine of an auto shotgun pointblank into an enemies face, and have it only take them down to like 40% health lol. I grabbed a mod that helps with it, but its still pretty bad, even with that mod, and it breaks the balance a bit. Hoping that once proper mod support is in we get something better.
I also think the whole “spaceship” part of the game is pretty half-baked, I wasn’t expecting E:D levels of piloting immersion, but I’d have hoped for more than basically a series of menus and loading screens for interstellar travel. Additionally ship combat balancing is pretty rough, all the encounters I’ve done so far have felt comically easy, or ridiculously hard (The final mission of a certain UC Vanguard mission comes to mind…)
Overall though I’m definetely having a lot of fun though, and while there are bugs, it’s definetely one the least buggy Bethesda titles we’ve seen so far, and definetely less buggy (in my experience) than BG3
So the way I play, I bought a silenced rifle early and spent my perks on stealth and ballistics. Most humans a few levels above me are single headshots from stealth or 2-3 shots once they know where I am. To me, that TTK feels pretty good, and I tend to be able to use space to attack at range and the boost pack for position.
I could see other approaches feeling less good, but that specific style feels pretty comparable to the later Deus Ex games I liked or Cyberpunk, but with better mobility.
I don't love the spaceship combat, at least that I've played so far (though it's been kind of minimal through 20 hours), but I don't like many. The only exception I can think of that really clicked for me was star citizen with a full stick and throttle, and I don't love most others, so I can't really evaluate that super well. I definitely don't think it's the focus, but it's weird that people expected stuff that only a very small handful of pretty pure space sims do and they never promised (flying down to planets). I don't love the number of loading screens, but on steam deck the length isn't awful, so I live with them.
That would probably help, but I find stealth builds to be really dull in Bethesda games. I do agree though that the mobility is great, I just wish there was zero-g combat (if there is, and I haven’t gotten there yet, no spoilers plz)
And yeah star citizen has the best flight model and ship combat mechanics imo - it’s a shame about the rest of the game… And to be fair there, there’s only so much you can do that with a flight model when it’s primarily going to be played on KBM or a game pad, but some games manage to do pretty damn well (Everspace comes to mind as a game with really excellent gamepad controls for spaceflight)
to be fair regarding what was promised, the vast majority of gamers arent out here reading every interview about the game ahead of time, so you can’t blame them for seeing a game that takes place in space, with stuff like ship building being one of its big selling points, and then blame them for expecting it to have features on par with the other big name space games from the last decade. Just because it’s not promised, doesn’t mean it’s not missed 🤷🏼♂️ like I said though, it’s really not a deal breaker, it just would have been a big selling point for me personally.
There’s some zero G combat areas you can come across. Like other Bethesda games, the main quest isn’t where you have the best interactions.
Level up the ship building skills and turrets will kill in space battles sometimes too fast. I rarely get the chance to board and steal the ships unless I scale back and turn off weapons.
If you want to stay in the game, you can target planets and moons from the cockpit to travel without opening up the Star map. Only scanning has to bring up the map. Random space encounters can be more enjoyable than some of the Fallout 4 ones.
the main quest isn’t where you have the best interactions.
No worries there, I’ve been focusing on faction quests and stuff like that for the most part, only occasionally dipping into the main quest for a few missions. One thing I feel like Bethesda did well with the writing of Starfield is that they finally made the main quest not world-saving urgent (at least not from the get-go). In practically every other bethesda game I can think of, the player starts off pretty much right from the start with a “Hurry! We need to do [Quest] before [Bad Thing] happens!”, which inevitably kills the immersion a bit when you go fuck around for a solid month just exploring and doing side-quests. But in Starfield it makes perfect sense that you’re not necessarily out there every single day chasing down artifacts, at the beginning of the game, they’re just a curiosity
It's not something that's close to regular for space games, either. I can name one game off the top of my head that has it (No Man's Sky), and there's very little else going for it. That one feature combined with endless planets less interesting than Starfield's is close to the whole game.
I’m sure there are others, but it’s really not as uncommon as you’re making it sound, especially for AAA titles. I’d also argue it’s disingenuous to say that No Man’s Sky has “very little else going for it”. It was shit at launch, but they’ve built a really solid game now.
Again (and I feel like I need to keep re-iterating this, because people on this site are so sensitive about any criticism to their favorite games) Starfield is fun. That just doesn’t mean that it couldn’t have been better, and there’s nothing wrong with pointing out the areas we feel it fell short. Really, I think what Yahtzee Croshaw said about Tears of the Kingdom applies here - “If the game had these things, you wouldn’t be saying they didn’t matter”
it appears that Alan Wake 2 is on track to be even more popular than Control, with the 2023 sequel having sold 1.3 million units as of this month, the fastest selling Remedy game to date. “By comparison, Alan Wake 2 sold over 50% more copies and over three times more digital copies in its first two months than Control did in its first four months,”
This is one of the games where I think epic exclusive is understandable. But, due to past and future actions I still won’t buy it from epic, but will happily claim it in a future give away.
There's ways to make places feel barren, open, unexplored and still be interesting. I've played several games that had sections that were essentially "empty" but still hand designed to be interesting. We don't need 1000 planets, we need good content.
One of the primary reasons people like Bethesda games is that they give players a large world to explore that's jam-packed with interesting things to see a do. If Bethesda abandons that and admits that majority of the content they expect players to interact with is going to be boring, procedurally-generated, then why should people play Starfield?
Bethesda isn't known for deep, complex stories. Their best writing is traditionally their side content with main stories panned. Their combat is pretty basic, but functional. Their RP is pretty sad and NPCs could be a lot better, especially these days. So it seems Bethesda has given away their biggest plus: an interesting world to explore.
The best part is, they already made a game with a gigantic world full of procedurally-generated content: Daggerfall, which is remembered fondly for a reason.
Funny you say that, Daggerfall is fondly remembered but only in spite of it’s procedurally generated overworld. Daggerfall’s openworld is extraordinarily barren, remarkably so. You literally will get lost if you walk more than 5 minutes from a town, and not in a fun way but because every direction you look is literally the exact same three tree and rock sprites and you lose sense of direction. Daggerfall’s overworld is so bare and empty and large it actively encourages you to engage in the fast travel system with fleshed out gameplay mechanics like camping supplies and vehicles.
At least I don‘t have to worry about Microsoft closing this studio soon. And not because I don’t think they wouldn’t do it. They absolutely would. It’s just that I wouldn’t care a bit.
While a large chunk of game developers are in America, it’s still a small fraction compared to worldwide.
A video game strike would probably slow down a few triple AAA projects. But rather than 10,000 games being released in a year, it might be 9,000 games.
I’m not anti-union or strikes. I just believe that if say Ubisoft America strikes, nothing will really change perception-wise as indie devs will fill in the blank, and Ubisoft shifts to Canada/Europe branches.
That’s it? The Blood of Llathander thing? I found that my first playthrough! It wasn’t even easy to miss unless you just completely fucked off on the first puzzle.
Damn, our hardware is so similar. I’m running a (single) 7900 XT and a 7600X. I’m also running on an nvme ssd, but presumably with your hardware you are too.
I wasn’t trying to be an ass with my question about your specs, it’s just that my hardware isn’t particularly high end, so I was confused at why so many people are having performance issues.
I mean it’s definitely not a great experience on the steam deck. I would imagine even the Series S can run the game better than the Deck can. Especially at 1080p since the deck only has an 800p screen. (Yes you can dock it but the experience will be even worse than the already reportedly poor visuals on the 800p screen)
If that report about the Series S losing split screen is true that seems like a pretty good compromise while also allowing a decent quality single player experience for Series S owners.
And what exactly do you consider “a great experience”? Because in act 2, with the game looking as shit as it possibly can, it still struggles to stay above 20FPS. I haven’t bothered trying act 3 on Deck, but act 3 is even more resource-intensive than act 2 so I can’t imagine it fares any better. “A great experience” is admittedly subjective, so I can’t say you haven’t had what you consider to be a great experience on Deck, but vaguely describing it as “a great experience” is negligent at best and outright disingenuous at worst. My act 2 experience on Deck was abysmal, and I think most opinions on that level of performance would agree.
For those that don’t care about Linux, or portability, or the steam deck being a PC, and just want to play BG3 on their TV for as cheap as possible, the Series S is by far the best option. That the game will also look and run significantly better than it does on steam deck is icing on the cake.
You need to change some settings. I forget which, but I think it’s fsr completely off and a few others. Then I capped it at 40 fps and it stays there while looking pretty good even in act 3.
The Series S is very frequently on sale for $50 off, sometimes more, and often comes with a bundled controller or game.
The Deck is only playable in Act 1. The frame rate in other acts struggles to reach 20 FPS, even on low settings. Also, the $400 deck you’re referencing cannot even install the game unless you buy an accompanying microSD (which I can’t imagine provides a good BG3 experience) or an SSD which you then crack open the steam deck to install (which will be too intimidating to most casual, non-tech people).
$450+ is a more accurate price point for playing BG3 on Steam Deck; 50% more than the Xbox MSRP, which is significantly discounted every few weeks. The Xbox will also offer a much more convenient experience to those who want to play the game on their TVs, and the game will look nicer on that hardware.
The Deck is an awesome little device, but you’re overselling it here, and ignoring a lot of nuance.
Curious to hear what settings you were using? Because after this steam deck fanatic kept harping about how it was a perfect experience from start to finish if you have the right settings, I went back and tried it on my Deck. In act 3, in a sparsely populated area of the city, I was hovering in the low 20s with frequent dips into the teens. With everything set to low (except textures on mediu) and all the visual flourishes like god rays, bloom, etc disabled. FSR couldn’t even improve things.
The steam deck is about half as powerful as the Series S. If you don’t want mobile gaming, there’s zero reason to buy the steam deck over the Series S.
And if a person doesn’t care about the steam library, linux operating system or emulation? If they just want to play BG3 and other modern games on their couch, running natively on their machine in a convenient, no-fuss manner? Will you admit that, for that person, the Steam Deck is a terrible option and they’d be far better served, both financially and visually, by buying an Xbox Series S, even at MSRP?
No, not at all. The deck is much more convenient and no fuss. It has sleep / resume. I can be in the middle of a battle in BG3, put the thing into sleep and set it down for a week. Press resume and I’m instantly back to where I left off. No turning on the TV, booting the console, starting the game, loading your save. And the portability is convenient even for just in the house. Play on the couch, at the table with coffee and breakfast, in bed before falling asleep.
Then when you factor in the value you get from being able to play modern games comfortably while traveling, I stand by my point that you’re a fool if you buy a series s over a deck.
I do almost all my gaming on the deck. It's great because of what it is as a handheld. If you don't intend to use those features, the lack of power makes a serious dent in the value it provides. And "no fuss" is correct compared to other PC handhelds, but crazy compared to an Xbox.
Yeah, this person is so deluded in their steam deck zealotry that they’ve lost touch with reality. In one comment they argue the steam deck’s value is in its Linux OS and ability to emulate Switch games, then in the next they argue that the thing is “much more convenient and no fuss”. The only convenience is in the portability. If you aren’t interested in sacrificing power for portability, that offers zero value. As for emulation, arguing that is no fuss would be laughable. Even native steam games can be iffy, requiring troubleshooting like swapping proton versions and entering launch commands. There’s a reason ProtonDB exists, and the Xbox doesn’t need something comparable.
The Steam Deck is great for what it is, but the only console it compares (and is vastly superior) to is the Switch.
It's basically all I use, and most of the headaches are more about publisher hostility than any actual issues with Linux (no, you not being able to install your fucking rootkit is not a failing). I basically don't even look at any of those statuses because I don't feel like I need to. Almost everything actually does just work.
But we're comparing it to a console lol. That, to the point of baked in performance settings tuned to the exact hardware, are their whole purpose.
Agreed. It’s a lack of publisher support that has created the issues with Linux gaming. To some extent I understand, given the minute market share Linux has historically possessed, but ultimately it’s just corporate greed. Valve is serving as a force for change, though; not altruistically, but a force nonetheless. Once Linux has a large enough install base, publishers will go where there’s money to be made, whatever anti-cheat concessions they have to make.
Lmao. Mate, I was an early adopter of the steam deck. I appreciate it for what it is, and I acknowledge its limitations. Meanwhile, you live in a fantasy where those limitations don’t exist and you’re unable to even acknowledge basic, objective facts. It’s fine that you love your steam deck but Jesus Christ, go touch some grass. Get outside your bubble for a second.
Feel free to elaborate on how the Deck is convenient to someone that isn’t interested in playing on a tiny, washed-out 800p display with sub-2 hour battery life while playing BG3, and how playing on a TV is less fuss with the Steam Deck than the Xbox. Quick resume is a completely different topic that would be irrelevant, even if the Xbox didn’t already have the exact same feature.
Then when you factor in the value you get from being able to play modern games comfortably while traveling
Worthless to someone that only wants to play at home on their TV, or isn’t tethered to an outlet. It seems you’re wholly incapable of comprehending that there are people with different use-cases and priorities than your own, and for those people the Steam Deck is a vastly inferior and costlier option. Buying the device that best meets their needs doesn’t make them a fool. It’s astounding that you don’t get this.
I would probably save up for the seriesX or PS5. If the S is already getting iffy here, what content are they gonna take out in future games? Why take that chance instead of saving for a system that’s actually convenient? I’d say avoid the series S.
The only reason the S is iffy here is because of couch co-op, which is already virtually extinct in the AAA space. The S is fine for what it is. But I also wouldn’t buy one at MSRP. I own 2 Series S consoles, but I paid $350 new for both and got a free headset with one of them. At $200, which is what it will likely be selling for again this black friday, it’s a steal. It’s twice as powerful as the Deck and it can properly utilize game pass.
Sure, the Steam Deck is cool, but a Series S can actually be bought in most of the world. Last I checked, Valve only sells it in less than 20 countries
Holy shit that article reaks of AI generated content. If it was written by a someone that claims to be human, then that human needs a Voight-Kampff test ASAP.
This is one case where I almost posted a summary from another source that linked to it, but there seems to be a (loose?) norm here around posting the original sources.
vg247.com
Ważne