I’ll need to double check if it looks like this outside of conversations, but I certainly feel like I’ve been playing a much better looking game than this.
Looks to me like this was cranked to low. About as honest as using a Mortal Kombat 1 screenshot from the Switch, but I guess it’s their fault for allowing people to lower their graphics like this.
I’ve been playing on minimum graphics, and it looks much better than any previous Bethesda game. The performance isn’t too great, and the TAA is a bit blurry, but it’s tolerable.
The game is usually quite attractive, but skin in particular is pretty bad in a lot of lighting. Subsurface scattering would go a long way to making them not look like clay, but there are other methods to fix this as well.
This is easily their best game post morrowind, in both story and gameplay, but I’m also not playing it anymore since it’s so cpu heavy that it’s forcing me to wait for fan patches or something; and I’m playing Cyberpunk just fine.
Is it really? What makes you say that? I don’t agree. There’s no more role play than FO4 (likely less). They removed the “yes, no, sarcastic, more information” wheel but the functionality is literally identical, just presented differently. You have relatively little freedom in how you play the game. The systems connecting things together also do a poor job connecting it. I don’t care for it. I am a huge fan of sci-fi and have been playing Bethesda games for a long time, and this one doesn’t do it for me.
Starfield just doesn’t look or play like a game that came out in 2023. Fallout 4 was already behind the curve for it’s time, and Starfield is basically just Fallout 4 in Space 8 years later. Rpgs have evolved in both gameplay and narrative and Bethesda just isn’t keeping up. Don’t know if it’s a skill issue or it’s corporate suits playing it safe and setting unreasonable deadlines, probably a mix of both.
Starfield may be a success financially and find a fan base for now, but it’s going to be forgotten soon by most and definitely won’t be seeing rereleases a decade later.
Imagine relying on free labor to fix your broken ass game, and then having people defend you when called out for making a boring game that relies on free labor for content.
Imagine thinking that what is very probably the most hand-crafted content ever in a 3D game, with one of the broadest variety of choices for anything close to that scale, is a game lacking content.
It's not an opinion. If you ignore straight procedural generation with no human input like no man's sky, Starfield is very probably the biggest 3D game ever made. The fact that it's an absolutely massive game isn't debatable in any way.
Nobody who's played it is making the ridiculous claim that they ran out of content. It's fundamentally not possible for "relying on mods for content" to be in good faith.
BG3 is a top down CRPG. Having 3D assets and being a 3D game with full 3D movement aren't the same thing.
And whether it's more content is debatable. There's more pure story and production, with a lot of branching, but the overall amount of space (not counting Starfield's use of negative space because of the setting) is significantly smaller. And even in terms of total number of quest lines, Starfield has a lot. Which you can get more time out of is all about personal preference. There will be people with 1000 hours in both, easy.
Turn based and action are mutually exclusive. It is not and does not resemble an action game.
The assets are 3D. You do not play in 3D. You do not cast a spell and have the physics of your interaction calculated in real time while 10 other characters are simultaneously acting and having their spells calculated based on the real time movements of all the other characters. You do not hit a jump button and have where you land determined by your speed and direction. The actual gameplay mechanics are all pure dice roll. There are no 3D physics in play.
Your jump must be decided by the vector of your movement when you hit the button. If it is not, there is literally nothing you can do to qualify.
Your actions must be aimed in real time and the outcome determined by the vector of your aim. Hitscan is shit, but it can qualify. If the action (not the vector of the shot) is decided by a dice roll, you unconditionally do not qualify.
There's plenty more. But BG3 is not and does not in any way mechanically resemble a 3D action RPG. It has no common traits. The camera perspective outside of combat isn't relevant.
I think you’re simply misunderstanding what “3D” means. 3D does not mean real-time, dynamic, or anything else. It simply means 3D. BG3 is entirely in 3D. Every single asset is 3D hell the entire explorable world is 3D. So yes, it quite literally is a 3D game. With action. Making it a 3D action game.
Think of what the alternative would be. Is this a 2D action game? Obviously not.
If you’re looking for a 3D real-time action game then yeah, this isn’t that. But that’s not what anyone’s arguing.
Edit: Also… is your argument that a game like Morrowind isn’t in 3D? Just because hits are handled by dice rolls? That’s insane lol.
No, it is not. You do not have a position in 3D space. You have a position on one of a small number of discrete 2D planes. BG3 is a 2D pure CRPG that happens to be decorated with 3D assets. Calling it a 3D game is the exact same unforgivable fraud as calling Metroid Dread one. It is not and does not in any way resemble it.
If you aren't strictly in real time for combat, you unconditionally cannot be or resemble an action game.
To be fully 3D, literally every part of the core gameplay physics must occur in real time. Hits cannot be determined by any other factor but the vector of the attack projected through 3D space into a character's hit box. The existence of a dice roll to determine a hit (not the vector) is an unconditional disqualifier in all contexts. There are no exceptions, and no room for them.
Everything about your description of BG3 is fully unhinged nonsense that should be offensive to any human being with any understanding of what games are. They aren't nitpicks. You're fundamentally destroying the core definition of very basic terms in a way that completely destroys all meaning. It would be less disgusting to be a flat earther.
In BG3 you do have a position in 3D space, what’re you talking about? Have you ever even played the game? My money’s on no.
Metroid Dread is a side scroller in which only one dimension is ever viewable outside of cutscenes. BG3 is a full 3D world with full camera movement, to the point of being an over the shoulder third person game should you choose to play it that way. They’re apples and oranges.
If you aren’t strictly in real time for combat, you unconditionally cannot be or resemble an action game.
If this were true then the term “real-time action” wouldn’t exist, as the term would be redundant. Besides, how do you then define games that have a bit of both, like Chrono Trigger? The whole thing seems a bit silly to me.
Hits cannot be determined by any other factor but the vector of the attack projected through 3D space into a character’s hit box.
So again, by your definition a game like Morrowind wouldn’t be considered a 3D game. That’s completely unhinged lol, nobody would agree with that. Clearly your definition is a bit flawed.
You’re fundamentally destroying the core definition of very basic terms in a way that completely destroys all meaning. It would be less disgusting to be a flat earther.
…I think maybe you need to take a break and go outside or something.
Literally everything about game development is a trade off. It's not possible to make a game at 5% of Starfield's scale as polished as a rockstar game. The difference in scale is too massive.
The scope of Bethesda games is a huge part of the point. Nobody else makes anything similar to what they offer.
UE5 is "the same engine" iterated on in the same way Bethesda's is, there are plenty of games using UE that don't run well, and it would take plenty of custom work to build to Bethesda's scale using it.
The current iteration of Unreal is completely unrecognizable from its original rendition, meanwhile this new version of the Creation Engine literally retains bugs present back in the days of Gamebryo. You simply can’t compare the two. But, in Bethesda’s defense, this isn’t due to incompetence or anything. It’s due to resource allocation and incentive.
There’s a reason most devs have been moving towards Unreal and away from making their own engines, and it’s because making your own proprietary engine takes insane amounts of time and resources - time and resources that devs don’t get any return on mind you. For most, it doesn’t make sense to dedicate loads of time to polishing an engine, when that time could be better spent on your next game - a game that you actually do get a return on.
Unreal is completely different in this regard, as Epic actually does get a return on their investment into the engine, as the engine itself is their product. So they have every incentive to polish Unreal as much as possible. That’s why it’s so insanely polished and indistinguishable from its original rendition. Not because all engines magically improve over time and at the same rate.
I know Todd Howard said that engines are somehow meaningless, and then a bunch of Bethesda fans took that and ran with it as a way to defend any criticism of the Creation Engine, but unfortunately it’s just not that simple.
And to be clear, I want the Creation Engine to succeed. I’ve been modding Bethesda games since 2013 and am still active in the modding community! The engine is rough but makes all of it possible, and the community at this point knows it so well that it’d be devastating to suddenly lose it all. But Bethesda needs to sit down and really dedicate some time to overhauling it, and unfortunately, albeit understandably, I just don’t see that happening.
Internet commenters keep getting dumber and dumber. I figured anyone with two brain cells to rub together would see that human beings can understand nuance and that not everyone likes or dislikes the same things and that the entire game is not 100% objectively bad.
People tend to think on black and white and not grayscale.
If you objectively compare the mechanics, writings and factions to fallout 4, Starfield is almost a direct upgrade from fallout 4 in several aspects. Gunplay, gun customization, rpg check choices that play more role in having a unique experience, factions that arent totally terribly written like it is in FO4, where almost all factions are unlikable or not interesting.
The people who are let down by starfield expected bethesda to not make a bethesda game in simple terms.
Do i think its GOTY material, hell no (im basically at the point of no return point in the game). Its a helluva lot better than FO4, but people treat the game like it killed their first child.
Well, I wouldn't necessarily say the exploration is as good, I think the issues about not having maps and there being a lot of loading screens are valid, but those problems don't automatically make the game horrible, and while the optimization isn't awesome after the recent update and Nvidia driver it looks decent and runs at an almost always locked out 60 FPS on my RTX 3060 with the settings lowered, so if you want the better visuals you can get there, and if you wanna play with smooth frame rate you can make that work, too. Again, not that that excuses it, but it's not irredeemably bad.
I think it's important that people understand what works about the game and what doesn't, whether they come to an end result of liking it or not, I hate to see people shit on it wholesale, and I also hate to see people defend it wholesale as well. It's got problems, but it's got successes, too.
I've actually been really enjoying it. It's a pleasant universe to just get absorbed in.
Sure, it's got a lot of very valid complaints (performance, UX etc.) but they matter less to me the more I get into it. Writing is not groundbreaking, but it gets pretty good. Since very good voice acting from otherwise random NPCs.
Also the first game I've played that lets me use non-binary pronouns as a third option, rather than just Gendered or not. Very cool and I hope to see more games do that.
I'd say the most disappointing thing is how straightforward almost every quest is. They don't do what Obsidian does in games like New Vegas and Outer Worlds where lots of quests have multiple resolutions, some hidden. In this game if it's not in the objective list it's usually not an option. It's the typical Bethesda experience of course, rather than Obsidian's, so it's still nice for what it is.
It's the closest I've personally felt to exploring and interacting with the worlds of Mass Effect 1 and Knights of the Old Republic in a long time. It's got that sense of wander about it for me.
Yeah the straightforward quests are sometimes a little disappointing.
I.e. there’s a tiny side quest where you have to get some rich guys wedding ring back from his fiance. You go to the fiance and that say that they saw the rich guy cheating (having a conversation) with the waiter at their favorite restaurant, and that they shouldn’t have to give the ring back.
I went back to the rich guy to find out if this was true, and to insert myself firmly into their drama, but there was no new dialogue from the rich guy. I just had to pick a dialogue option to either take the ring or let the fiance keep it.
It would have been nice to be able to confirm my suspicions that they were just being friendly with the waiter, not cheating, and maybe get the two back together. But no it was go to person A, get quest, speak to person B, return with ring/update that they are keeping it.
There are some great quests, and lots of cool world building, but the RP portion is sometimes a bit lacking compared to (as you mentioned) New Vegas.
The only game that scratches the space exploration itch Elite doesn't quite scratch (I mean, Elite is very good, but has it's shortcomings when it comes to on-foot stuff). Ship interiors, base building and having actual life on planets, not just some fungoida and bacterium patches, alone are a reason to be excited about Starfield. Also, jetpack combat.
Funny how Elder Scrolls veterans are enjoying the game for what it is while bitter Playstation diehards, wishful thinkers with gigabyte-sized dreams.txt and bandwagon-o'-hate jumpers are complaining about things that never were to be so loud you can clearly hear the "Reeeeeeeeeee...." from Alpha Centauri😏
It just wasn't that good. Not terrible, but very bland. I put 30 hours in but finally stopped when I realized I wasn't having fun, I was only chasing the idea of fun.
I don't even like DND and I thought BG3's first act put the entire story of Starfield to shame.
Now I'm playing through Phantom Liberty and loving the hell out if it.
I started liberty by accident trying to level up a bit. Figured i would take my leave and come back later only for the dlc to fail because the thing chrashed and person was not saved
Lol the same thing happened to me the first time I tried it.
I went to the assigned area, chatted with the quest NPC, then I wanted to just murder all the hostiles in the area, so I went to find a good sniping spot... and then the quest failed because I left the area. RIP that NPC, RIP Phantom Liberty.
I generally feel the same way about all Bethesda games. I’ll return after some DLC and Mods have been released.
There is some pretty cringe writing and stylistic choices this time around. Space cowboys and Freestar were conceptualized by a child and the PG pirate brigade are embarassing.
There are some bones for a pretty great empire building mod though. Can’t wait to see a sim-settlements type mod for Starfield.
The Ryujin quest line is exactly what I expected the corpo background to be like. It’s too bad the backgrounds/origins aren’t fleshed out enough beyond what is essentially the prologue of Cyberpunk.
They really turned Cyberpunk around it’s so fun. I played maybe an hour of it on launch and was like “what is this shit”, started playing with 2.0 and the story is cool, the characters are rad, the game is beautiful, combat is fun (enemies a bit too spongey for me but not awful, better combat than witcher 3).
I feel like I was so hyped for the Starfield release, but playing it wasn’t as exciting as I thought.
BG3 released and I wasn’t expecting it. But I’ve had such a blast with it that I can’t stop playing.
I want to come back to Starfield later when they have had time to get mod support goin and whatnot. but for now, I have other titles to play to keep me happy.
they require a massive dataset to do so. much much much more than an individual person’s playthrough
They actually suck at learning compared to us, in some ways. If I show you a car, and tell you, only once “this is a car” you will start recognizing other cars, of different sizes, colors and models, from any orientation.
Meanwhile, look at something like tesla cars. they have been gathering data for years, and the ai still has issues recognizing cars sometimes.
At first I thought, “Oh cool, they’re showing what the game used to look like before they reveal the new graphics.” But that is what the game looks like…? I mean, the before and after comparison footage looks completely identical, doesn’t it? It’s October 1st, not April. I feel like I’m taking crazy pills.
I went to watch the video with very low expectation after your comments and yet I was still really disappointed. It looks worse than the original to me, because it lost that early 3D look due to higher res textures here and there and now it’s just hideous.
games
Aktywne
Magazyn ze zdalnego serwera może być niekompletny. Zobacz więcej na oryginalnej instancji.