The author’s arguing that BG3 makes Starfield look like a shallow RPG by comparison. Their broader point is that Starfield is behind the times compared to most RPGs released in the last couple decades, even compared to something like Fallout 3.
It's even better when Bethesda themselves describes Starfield as the "next-generation of RPGs". It's the same type of Bethesda game that I've been playing for 15+ years just with a new coat of paint. If this is the next-generation, then the future has no ambition whatsoever.
The game seems (to me) to essentially be FPS, Sci-Fi Skyrim, with some space fight minigames. There’s a lot of stuff you can do, but the main storyline is pretty short, the AI sucks, and most of the appeal is side content and looks.
That’s what I expect from Bethesda, and that’s what they delivered. It’s only really “next gen” in the procedural generation department, so it’s basically a regular Bethesda game, with a little bit of experimentation thrown in. That’s what Bethesda delivers, and they deliver pretty consistently.
I’m guessing there will be a ton of cool mods in the next few years for a deeper story, interesting space combat, etc.
For sure. That’s just how articles have to be titled to get clicks unfortunately. It can be annoying, but it helps keep journalism alive, so you take the good with the bad.
Sam Coe: “Y’know, captain, I’ve been thinking, I’ve been talking about myself for a long time, but I’ve never really asked you about yourself. It seems to me that you’re a mute of some kind, and everyone just talks AT you, rather than TO you. So I’ve got to ask you, how does a Chef like yourself end up working for a mining company on Narion?”
[Camera turns 180° degrees to face the player like in BG3]
• My name’s FuntyMcCraiger and I used to run a restaurant before we ran into hard times.
You know, mining is a lot like cooking. I like mining rocks.
• That’s none of your business. After being mute for 80 hours, I’ve decided to have good dialogue and good writing because they paid their writers a living wage.
• Shut the fuck up, Sam Coe.
• Can you smell what the FuntyMcCraiger is cooking?
They haven’t called it anything yet, this is just a way of saying “new version of the switch”. Could still be Super Switch, SwitchU or even New Switch XL!
This video has also the best beginning of any game review ever. The binary moral choice bollocks is a horrible trend that should go away already. I guess Bioshock perhaps started it?
Seems like nobody mentioned Undertale’s beginning. That was pretty good. But I’m easily swayed by when the soundtrack is superb, and Undertale’s certainly is one of the best ones I’ve heard in 30 years of gaming.
edit Yes, Undertale also has the moral choice bollocks in it, but I dare to say it was so central to the plot that it was fine there.
If you have any interest in that style of RPG, I’d say playing the first KOTOR is time well spent. The graphics are junk but building your team in a Jedi / Scoundrel shooter looter and solving all the dumb locals problems in sometimes hilarious ways. I guess what I’m trying to say is most of the gameplay is still solid. Think FF active time battle for encounters, it’s very similar to that. Check it out!
Yeah, and now that I think about it, perhaps KOTOR’s moral system doesn’t fall under “binary moral choice bollocks”, since the Yedi vs Sith -thing is a fundamental thing of that universe. Would’ve been silly if that choice didn’t exist in that game.
To be honest, I’d prefer binary good/bad moral choice options in a game, rather than half assed stories with multiple fake choices with no consequences.
Give me a good story line or an evil one, but make both of them high quality. Or, just stick to one.
BG3 did multiple choices properly. Whereas Starfield (or any Bethesda game) is just a waste of time having dialogue options.
If you wanted a realistic karma system, the only consequence of doing shitty things would be shitty reputation, and only if you’re caught doing the shitty thing. A powerful enough metaphysical (stretching “realistic” here a bit) being might perhaps catch every time you do.
And it depends on the listener too. Some people should stomach more shit, while some might drop you from their internal list of “good people” on the first mistake.
But all this is probably difficult to pull off in a story-based game.
Encumbrance is supposed to provide a type of challenge, and realism. Though how realistic is carrying more than like, one extra weapon really? Also, it is a weird thing to get hung up on for “realism’s” sake. The best possible argument for encumbrance is forcing players to make choices. In roguelikes for example, you very often only get to choose from a limited number of rewards. In that sense it’s really fun, but you cannot go back on your choice. With encumbrance, if you must, you can keep all your rewards, but it’s just very tedious to do so. So instead of forcing the choice and creating dynamic gameplay, most likely you’re just forcing the player to do some tedious shit. Roguelikes deal with the hording mentality much better than a traditional RPG.
Another thing to note about encumbrance, is that there’s just so much random garbage you can pick up in these games. Someone else mentioned that in real table top rpg, you’re not picking 100 wheels of cheese cuz they might come in handy later. I think it’s honestly just filler content, and doesn’t really add to the game aside from the fact that if you couldn’t pick up that wheel of cheese, you’d feel slightly cheated. I wouldn’t call it lazy game development, but I think “loot” as a gameplay element has a lot of evolving to do. It feels good to get loot, but so often it has to be padded out to feel like you’re actually getting anything. You have to receive it often enough. It has to give some benefit or it just feels like window dressing. That’s a fine line that very few games handle very well at all.
I think it would be interesting to be able to hire a merchant NPC to loot for you. You’d lose a bit of the value (say, half), but the merchant would reinvest those profits to carry better items, and they’d give you a discount.
You’d have an incentive to look through the loot to take what you want, as well as an incentive to ignore the stuff you don’t. That way you get the immersiveness of an encumbrance system, without most of the tedium.
Right, at the very least it’d add a gameplay element to the tedium. Or maybe your character refuses to pick up random shit unless they have the right abilities/training. Or like in skyrim where you can’t see the characteristics of certain plants you pick up until you’ve leveled up in a certain field enough, but instead of not showing the alchemical properties, the item itself isn’t fully detailed - like it’ll just look like a generic mushroom, or a generic sword/gun/etc. And a player with very high skills in certain areas would unlock different characteristics of that item.
The downside is with a realistic encumbrance system, you’d either:
A) Not be picking anything up, or:
B) Making so many milk runs your head will spin from the tedium of ferrying useless bullshit back and forth.
Being 70-80 hours into STARFIELD, there’s non-cheating ways to avoid the encumbrance penalty, such as the “Powered Assist” backpacks which lowers O2 / stamina consumption by 75% when overencumbered. You can also deposit your loot into your ship’s cargo bay and sell directly from it by pressing Q at any vendor.
In ITR/Into The Radius VR, a fully realistic military looter shooter survival horror like STALKER; I picked up and carried EVERYTHING, but through the use of an inane amount of utility items, such as a chest harness, backpack, lower back bags, leg bags, thigh bags, and so on. (My favorite thing to put in my belt bags was cake slices and energy drink cans, made for hilarious streaming content when you take a bite of cake in a dire situation)
I still spent like 20 real-life hours slogging knee deep through swamp to ferry back an entire inventory of artifacts worth 5K/ea.
So my takeaway is, people are gonna loot and hoard; if they do that, encourage it. If not, reward the player with more credits from missions and other things that don’t involve scraping and strip-mining every planet for every ounce of metal.
It depends on the kind of tabletop rpg. In old school ones you may have a cart and hireling to carry this stuff, so you would definitely take those cheese wheels to sell them or for food to your group that’s not so small anymore. Logistic was part of the game. But a part that’s easily lost depending on how you play.
Honestly, realism justifications for encumbrance outside of survival-type games where basic biological needs are the core gameplay loop have always been silly to me… but the latter one about wheels of cheese rings true.
To me the argument is “what does optimal play look like”? Without encumbrance, there’s no reason not to pick up every wheel of cheese, so optimal play is to pick up every wheel of cheese, which is tedious and dumb. But with encumbrance, every wheel of cheese becomes a tedious decision, and completionist-optimal play is to burn endless time ferrying stuff to the shops or storage or whatever. But as you said, making every wheel of cheese not something you can pick up breaks immersion.
So what’s the compromise that actually makes sense for the “wheel of cheese” problem? A realistic setting is cluttered with “slightly-useful” items. Don’t put so many “slightly-useful” items outside of settings with NPCs that will have realistic reactions to you stealing their stuff? But coding those realistic reactions (“uh, you’re The Savior, I guess you can steal all my food… a bit… okay that tears it call the guards!”) would be some more dev-work in these already-bloated projects.
But the problem still exists in hostile locales. A lived-in enemy camp is going to have store-rooms of “slightly useful” stuff. If the hero stops to raid the larder while massacring nameless Stormtroopers, is that a problem? I can see the immersion argument that “well, if you can, you probably should since you might need it and that breaks immersion” and therefore that justifies the encumbrance idea, but I also see Steph Sterling’s argument “this is just a game and I wanna!” And I have trouble defending realism in these games about butchering your way across the landscape without ever stopping to poop.
Do you mean Xbox Game Pass Ultimate? It can be streamed out of a browser or mobile app.
Why would they need a hardware device when your probably holding a device that supports cloud streaming and they can milk you for a subscription fee?
games
Najnowsze
Magazyn ze zdalnego serwera może być niekompletny. Zobacz więcej na oryginalnej instancji.