I think nuclear is one of my favorite parts of the game. The process for making it and then converting the uranium waste into plutonium is massive, but feels so rewarding once it’s done. Thing is, I’m only running one plant at the moment since I still have enough power production from coal and geothermal. Figured it’d be best to keep plutonium waste to a minimum until I really start needing it, unless they add a feature to bury it. I’ve moved my plants next to the out-of-bounds area near Niagara Falls so I can store the plutonium waste in a container out-of-bounds.
Fair, turbofuel is hard one, not a lot of sulfur on the map, requires rebuilding (or starting a whole new) fuel plant, and depending where you are it may be worth going to full nuclear first. Have fun, Pioneer!
PS there is !satisfactorygame , it’s a bit dead, but when I get back into it I’ll be posting there
I don’t post much on Lemmy and am trying to decide how I want to post without just encouraging everybody to go on the big instances, and so my posts don’t disappear if an instance dies. Figured posting to my own instance and then cross-posting to a large instance and some smaller ones would be a good way to encourage growth everywhere but that’s just me overthinking as always. Tis’ an interesting experiment.
Pretty much same for me. Also you might not want to place your plutonium out of bounds. There might be an update in the future for Nuclear Waste recycling since that is ostensibly possible irl, just really expensive and not worth it atm.
I can get that. I guess the concern would be that Coffee Stain start purging/deleting anything out-of-bounds? You can see the container for the plutonium waste off in the distance a little. The power plants are half in/half-out of the out-of-bounds area.
I’m enjoying the game and having fun but I also have a long list of complaints. #1 for me right now is not having the right dialogue options. First bethesda rpg where a character can ask me if something is a good idea and there is no option to tell them no!
I got Outer Worlds because of all the talk about it having more choice than Fallout 4 and didn’t find that to be true at all. It was largely the same with nothing but Yes, No, and Not Now options.
I disagree, every potential option for betrayal or aligning with one cause versus another in any given scenario was just as good as any other Bethesda game.
The narrative was tighter and not as open world, but I liked the art design a lot and gameplay well enough.
I disagree, every potential option for betrayal or aligning with one cause versus another in any given scenario was just as good as any other Bethesda game.
That’s what I was saying tho. It was only just as good as any other Bethesda game; but it was being praised for being so much better than that.
I watched some streams of Starfield, and I just can’t understand how they made a game that looks so dull and boring. Skyrim had some soul to it, I remember being wowed by the trailer. The world and music in Skyrim are really beautiful too. Yeah it’s a janky Bethesda game in many ways, but it is also more than that.
My thoughts exactly. Whatever issues were in Morrowind, Oblivion, New Vegas, Skyrim etc there was still a uniquely engaging game there.
I’ve been poking around and their lead concept artist died before he got to work on Fo4, and the two main writer producer guys Emil & Pete(?) have basically admitted on game dev talks that they’re no longer trying to tell a coherent story or create a world anymore, just keep a player playing. Maybe this is why?
For all the Bethesda games I’ve played (barring Starfield), I’ve been instantly hooked and wanting to play more. There’s always been something to keep me playing. But in Starfield I feel like there’s just nothing there, I’m not feeling any sense of wanting to explore and find out more. I’m glad I didn’t pay for my copy, would have been a waste of money imo
The short but incorrect answer would be somewhere between 300-400 hours, but that’s from the start of playing Satisfactory (as in, my first time playing this game) up to completing the last launch in the space elevator to get the golden mug. It also includes many nights of just leaving the game running. I originally started (with friends) in the flat grasslands and started moving a lot of production into the area you see in the video. A lot of the coal generators and things built on foundations (the stuff that looks neat) was built by friends.
I have started work on splitting up parts of the Sushi Train into smaller factories. The thing I liked about the Sushi Train was that if one of the assemblers/manufacturers/etc weren’t producing anything anymore, then another could use the same building resource instead. That way you don’t end up wasting ingot/ore production because the assemblers are idle. As an example, I have moved copper sheet, ingot and wire construction (mostly) next to the miner and each of the 3 can use 100% of the miners output. That way resources are only wasted if both constructors are idle and no ingots are needed elsewhere.
It would seem so to me. When there’s a big disparity across the ratings - positive and negative are similar on metacritic with little in between - it raises a lot of red flags to me.
Not sure if it’s evidence of organized review bombing. but yeah, it seems like most people are just being as extreme as possible because they know it’s a scale of averages.
For PC, game optimization is very inconsitent. When I’m in a smaller space like a dungeon or the Constellation Lodge, it’s actually pretty great and runs smoothly. When I go into the city though, the framerate is terrible. The graphics also become significantly worse. So yeah, wouldn’t be surprised if a lot of those negative reviews are from PC players having to deal with Bethesda jank again.
It's reasonable to expect high framerates in 2023. If people want the game to run smooth there's nothing wrong with that. Hell, doom eternal was a Bethesda game and it looked gorgeous and ran like butter, so we know they can pull it off.
A lot of people also seem to not know that you can’t just spend 80% of your budget on a graphics card and buy whatever CPU you can afford with whatever is left.
I have a 3080 and the game runs noticeably worse in the cities than it does in small rooms. And that's with everything at low-medium and 75% rendering resolution which seems ridiculous. And the game doesn't even look that good.
I dunno, TLoU2 definitely got it harder but there’s still that massive gap in middle range reviews (see image) that made me question it with Starfield.
I am really enjoying it. The emergent story-lines that have cropped up just from me doing stuff is great. Having to really focus my skill points into perks forces me to stick with a play style and the gunplay and upgrades are fantastic. I love just fucking off to some random corner of the galaxy and finding a whole entire storyline to explore. Yes, the lack of low orbit flying is glaring since I played a lot of NMS but the story telling here is top tier and I just keep wanting to go back and play. Even now, I am just writing this one comment and then I am off to betray the Crimson Fleet >:)
I can’t play it because I own neither.a gaming PC nor an Xbox, but the impression I’m getting from all the reviews and reactions I’ve seen is that it’s basically a good game, if it had been released in 2008.
It looks like they did the best they could, but they did it using an outdated engine that simply cannot be used to make a modern game.
I’ve been seeing similar, with people saying they would have liked Starfield more if they hadn’t played Baldur’s Gate 3 first. That’s where I feel like a fair number of the “meh” scores are coming from. It’s like people are saying it’s really good, but not mind-blowing.
I played BG3 first. Near the end of it now. What could Bethesda have done to measure up to BG3?
Be less buggy? SF is a more complicated game than BG3. More stuff than can go wrong. Also BG3 has a lot more bugs later in game, in the part that hasn’t been out for early access for years now.
Have more story branches? If ME didn’t convince Bethesdas earlier games to put in more choices, why should BG3? Most people know what they get from these games.
Better writing? Thats a very subjective thing. And BG3 have a lot of already existing lore to build on top of.
Some times the quality of a game comes down to luck, timing, and what skill you got available. And trying to figure out which of two good games is objectively the “best” is a waste of time. We should be happy we got two good new games. In two different genres. And measure them against their prequels instead. Has the game evolved since the last game? BG3 has two parent games, BG2 and D:OS. It has improved on them both in combining them. Starfield was born from Fallout. Definitely an upgrade too, while staying true to what we expect in that line of games.
Thats my take on it. If a new XCom came out tomorrow, I wouldn’t be disappointed it wasnt BG3, I’d be happy and hope it had improved on XCom 2.
It’s not about “trying to figure out which of two good games is objectively the “best”,” but more like Horizon Zero Dawn coming out right after Breath of the Wild. Horizon is a truly great game, but it suffered from coming out right after what turned out to be a definitive open-world game. It’s not about better, it’s about timing. People would have had different expectations of Starfield had it come out before BG3, just because BG3 changed some people’s expectations of things like quests and ways to do them.
And again, I’m just going by what I’ve seen in reviews and something I’ve noticed in them. I’m never going to play Starfield (nothing against it, but I physically can’t play first person games), so I can’t say one way or the other about what the quests and worlds are like.
I would take the whole “old crappy bethesda engine” meme with a grain of salt.
IMO it is a good engine, it is getting updated by them on every new game like any other engine. And there are a lot of changes all over. For that reason modders have to develop new tools to create meshes, reverse egnineer the changed data formats, etc. Saying that it is the same engine as Skyrim or Fallout 4/76 is just not true.
It is also one of the most mod friendly engine. The content creation tools from Bethesda and modders make it really easy to work with, even for people not able to code themselvs.
And personally the game looks and works fine. Of course you can critique the game itself, but attacking the whole engine is exagerated. Sure it has bugs, and you can attack bethesda about not fixing them, but suggesting that they throw away the whole engine because of a couple of bugs or subjective “looks bad” opinions is ridiculus.
Also, I don’t think just using Unity or UE4 (where bethesda devs first need to learn them first) magically fixes every complaint and bug. But it might make the game not as easily moddable.
Is it just an exaggeration, though? It is old. It is... kinda crappy. I've played and loved a bunch of Bethesda games, but they do tend to fuck up in some pretty characteristic ways. So characteristic that they happened in Oblivion, Skyrim, Fallouts 3, NV and 4, and now apparently Starfield. In my hour or so of gameplay I already encountered the "corpses somersaulting around" thing, a tradition since at least Skyrim.
True, it doesn’t have raytracing, like most big game engines now. And the first city you come to is VERY plain and clean and oversized and underdetailed. It would probably be better if one started out in Akila or Neon or The Well somewhere with more details. But not every game, particularly one as open and customizable as this, can have EA level models or Cyberpunk level details. Nor is it the engines fault. Seen the Unreal Engine? How old is that one, 1998 i think? Nobody complains about that.
It is the fault of what they want to create. They want an engine that can do big open worlds, with interactable and persistent junk of all kinds, but that they can also very quickly create new content for. And is easily moddable with as little risk of mod conflicts as possible. And a very simulated AI, one that doesn’t need handhelding through pre-placed paths, but can navigate freely even through user-created buildings and chaotic situations. They end up looking dumber than other games AIs, but thats only because other games rely more on the illusion of a smart AI.
I agree! The content of the game is the issue, not the engine. Bashing Bethesdas engine is just a meme, at this point.
Linux is 32 years old, people wanting to throw everything away and start new, just because they don’t like certain aspects of it, are crazy.
Personally, I don’t really care about raytracing, or even improving the graphics that much, IMO they should reuse assets and code if that will make them invest more of their time to improve their writing, quests and let people go their own paths through the quests instead of just having 2 or 3 options (do the quest, don’t do the quest and sometimes rat the people out to the authorities). So that we have BG3 level of writing and quests, in different kind of game.
And for god sakes, do simple things like let companions whisper when sneaking.
Also, New Atlantis doesn’t look build for Humans but for giants, too much scaled up.
Is whispering while sneaking so easy though? It would double the voice acting budget, time, and the audio asset size. Theres no magic audio filter for making believable whispering out of regular voices.
Well, maybe there will be once game studios start using AI voice actors.
At the very least just lower the voice volume of companions in sneak even if it’s lazy fix. I don’t need breathy whispers in my ear for funny or throw away dialogue. But that’s just my thoughts maybe other people are different.
I told my wife I’d have been thrilled to get this game in 2016. In 2023 it does feel dated though, If they don’t update the engine significantly before their next game it may actually hurt sales.
People like to claim any big ticket game that doesn’t get like 8/10 or higher is being review bombed. Seems as if people have legit criticisms of the game and it’s pretty fairly reviewed.
Metacritic’s user rating system is just shit. You see the game rated higher than deserved and you can either
give it an honest rating resulting in the total score dropping by 0.01
give it a zero rating and have the score drop by 0.1
Of course most people chose to rate it in a way that has more impact on the total score, so it’s no wonder we see 0/10 and 10/10 more than anything else.
This phenomenon will be even more exaggerated if critics ratings are undeservedly high, as is the case with Starfield.
The reason it’s lower on metacritic is mainly due to the fact that the critics rating is too high, imo. This leads to disappointed players leaving extra bad scores (i.e. 0/10) to offset the total score. In a way that’s review bombing, but only as a reaction to the inflated critics’ reviews (which I often suspect to be bought or bribed).
Usually the Steam reviews are a lot more reliable. As I said, metacritic’s system is shit and encourages rating manipulation.
Because my initial comment was about metacritic and my argument is that metacritic is a bad indicator of review bombing because it actually encourages it
So my question repeats: why mention it as if I’m defending it when I merely correctly stated its a review bomb. Like why are you trying to make that a discussion when it’s not…
I’m not even making it a discussion. You mentioned metacritic in your (now edited) comment and I explained why metacritic’s system actively encourages review bombing. So it’s no wonder you’ll see a decent amount of review bombing there.
youtu.be
Aktywne