The examples of games that made a comeback were No Man’s Sky, a sandbox game missing features where, development-wise, it’s very feasible to add in missing promised features; and Cyberpunk, a game with good bones that didn’t function a lot of the time. Starfield’s problems are deeper than that, at least from my perspective.
The tech tree and leveling system is “improve by doing”, which runs into the same problems those systems always run into, which is why no one else does them anymore. It incentivizes me to get shot in combat on purpose so that I can improve my healing, and other stupid behaviors like that. So many of the quests are thoughtless fetch quests with nothing interesting along the way, and the game would actually be better with their omission than their inclusion. The endgame mechanic is an interesting one on paper, but seeing as the major quest lines only really play out one or two slightly different ways, there’s not much that’s interesting about going back to them, and you can also do all of them in a single playthrough, so there’s no need to engage in the endgame mechanic to see it. These are some of the problems that can be fixed but will likely be so costly and time consuming when there are Elder Scrolls and Fallout games to be made that I doubt it’ll ever happen.
The more fundamental flaws are that you can’t spec your character to interact with the world in wildly different ways and get clever with its systems; the universe doesn’t flow together the way that one of their terrestrial open worlds from before do, and fast travel is now mandatory; and the story walks right up to an interesting sci-fi story and stops just short of being good. To change these things sounds a lot like making an entirely different game.
I absolutely agree. Even with skyrim, I could mod every aspect of the game, I could make combat and the graphics good add lots of new mechanics and quests. But I still couldn’t make it good. The story, the copypasted dungeons and lifeless NPCs the game is rotten to the core and even if I can fix some of it I can’t just replace the core that would be a different game like Enderal.
You’re not wrong, but I feel that level of support for one of their releases would be a bit out of character for Bethesda (Without the long-term monetization present in games like Fallout 76). Especially so with the trend of Bethesda’s comments indicating that the consumers are the ones who are wrong for not liking some of the more problematic game design decisions.
I think they mean more about reworking core mechanics of the game such as the planet generation and the fact that space flight is basically pointless outside of ship combat. I don’t foresee them being able to allow ships to fly down to planet surfaces in Creation Engine.
cyberpunk was buggy but fundamentally sound. starfield is flawed in its core, no amount of bug fixing or system tweaking is going to fix it. they’d have to cut out space and planets entirely.
That looked far better than I expected. It had a lot of Horizon Forbidden West vibes to the gameplay, but the graphics definitely felt like being in the Star Wars universe.
Don’t have an Xbox but I remember these games really fondly. This looks cool, but like, kind of insanely polished for a Fable game? Interested to see what the vibe of the finished game is like.
The art direction seems kind of off, but sometimes that can shake itself out in game.
The tone of the trailer is definitely not the Dragon Age vibe. Lighthearted Oceans-style crew selection to deal with what looks like some sort of world-ending calamity? Yeah, that’s not right.
Things could work out but I’m sure not feeling optimistic.
They’ve been slowly going in that direction with the writing since DA2, unfortunately. Inquisition definitely had more of it than the other 2, but this is almost fanfiction-levels, honestly.
I really liked the first reboot, but felt Eternal overcomplicated it and made it like a memory game of working out which gun was best for each enemy, which isn’t really what I wanted from it. Too much finicky precision (like shooting the goddamn turrets off things), and not enough wanton carnage.
It took the story way too seriously as well, and the most enjoyable thing from the first game’s story was somebody starting some exposition, followed by Doomguy smashing the radio.
Just wasn’t feeling it as much as I was with the first. It was only the soundtrack that got me through it tbh, and with Mick Gordon very much not on speaking terms with id Software, I’ll keep my expectations lowered for this.
Sorry it’s not going in the direction you hoped. I’m personally super into this vibe. Feels bizarre and different. Hopefully they capitalize on the theme and do something cool with it. If the “dragon” flight part is as tight and fun as recent Doom mechanics, it could be really fun.
Agreed. I am not a fantasy fan for games really at all (with very few exceptions) but this looks so rad. The combination of tech and fantasy looks like a wild ride.
Yeah i really prefer the lovecraft aesthetic of Quake 1 over the tech, body horror of the sequels. Science coming into contact with something that defies science and reason is one of my favorite genres of fiction. The Myst, Event Horizon, Doom (especially Doom 3,) and the newest Rimworld dlc all really scratch that itch of coming into contact with something outside of reality, outside of reason and understanding. Really wish for more of that.
Yeah, I kind of agree. I wish they’d make a new Quake or something, Doom is cool and all but this barely resembles it. Eternal was fun, but too goofy and campy, Doom 2016 did it perfectly.
youtube.com
Aktywne