This comment doesn't actually say anything. It's just casting aspirations against me because you didn't like what I said. It doesn't rebut anything or offer differing opinions on anything I proposed.
Bethesda is sub-par in just about every aspect of game development. Shallow combat. Basic dialogue trees. Skill/feats haven't evolved in several games. Engine so old it has to have loading screens for every type of transition.
But you picked the story and acting to tout as good? Bethesda is well-known to have pathetically bad main-story arcs. Only a handful of side quests end up being engaging to most people. The face animations are...better now but still deeply in the uncanny valley. Their acting is usually deadpan with only the merest speck of emotion and shown as if the actor is reading their script for the first time during recording.
Honestly the main thing that Bethesda games have going for them are a detailed, hand-crafted world that is fun to explore and experiment in. Which...Bethesda handily disposed of to have the majority of its world and worlds be procedurally generated.
The Matrix Awakens ran on the console presented by Nintendo with “graphics comparable to current generation consoles from Sony and Microsoft” , citing that medium. The demo included “advanced” ray tracing and used Nvidia’s artificial intelligence upscaling technology, the well-known DLSS .
So Nintendo didn't share specs. And they saw a handheld Unreal 5 demo that they thought looked as good as ps5/xbsx. But it was also running DLSS so it might have running at significantly lower resolutions.
But on a handheld screen that's harder to tell. And Nintendo are masters of making games running at low resolutions and levels of detail look like they are a lot better. So there's zero chance it's actually as capable as a PS5 but there is a decent chance they can run Nintendo games that would appear to be. So maybe TOTK at 4k@60 with higher resolution textures? Honestly that'd be plenty.
Its on Game Pass, Todd. If it doesn't run well I'll just not play Skyrim-Space Edition.
My partner who is interested has a PS5 and an older PC. If her PC doesn't run it, she'll probably just keep playing Stardew Valley. Honestly it's not like anyone is going to really be talking about Starfield in a month or two except ridiculous ship builds on social media.
Well, maybe? A Steam competitor could try what Epic did and offer better deals. This time to publishers and players if they actually want customers. Or they could try to offer things Steam doesn't. Or they could just try for parity and see if it works? We haven't seen a platform with parity yet so maybe people would want a new option?
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.
You are all saying that both games have boring, procedurally generated planets. Sounds like both games were designed with boring elements people don't want. Just because ED is more boring, doesn't mean Starfield is good.
Bethesda doesn't have deep quests either. The creation engine is a weight around the devs necks. I'm not sure what you're trying to say but you're making my points for me.
This shows you've missed the point and haven't researched the game.
It's all the animation transitions between space and ground. No Man's Sky had fifteen developers and accomplished this years ago. Bethesda is pathetically incompetent.
I bet you'd complain about your new car having roll up windows or no ac. Times have changed and we can do better. Especially with their budget and 6 years. It's pathetic.
It's definitely a Bethesda game. Their dialogue choices and roleplaying has always been shit. People like Bethesda games primarily because they're given a large open world to explore. But they made most of this one procedurally generated so they've lost their main good quality. I really hope the players are pushed by the stories and side quests to the hand-crafted worlds and the procedurally generated are mostly in the background for players that want to go off the beaten path.
If you're a 3.5/pf1e player, I'm sure you can imagine how high level spells can get really complicated to program in a game engine. And more importantly, how impossible to balance for them it can be. BG3 does a decent job of adapting spells to not be annoying or broken to use in a video game, but some high level 5e spells are way more ridiculous and open ended.