It seems people jump onto the bandwagon of hate for attention here. I mean it does feel like a beta version or something, but it’s not that terrible. Quite an amusing game still. Just maybe not worth the full price. These are my honest thoughts.
lmao I totally get you man. I watched paint dry, and it was wonderful, felt completely immersed and accomplished. At least more immersed accomplished than when playing that pretentious garbage that is Starfield.
@@jakestarr4718you guys don’t have SSDs? Sounds like a you problem. The loading screens aren’t even that much of a problem when you have a good SSD. Loading takes only one second when you go through doors, you don’t even notice that it’s a loading screen.
The funniest thing is that some of the loading screens aren't even actual loading screens. Like docking, opening airlocks, or sitting in your cockpit. They're just time wasters. Yes, some developer at Bethesda thought there weren't enough loading screens, so they added a few non-functional extras for good measure. I liked Starfield for about a month, but then picked up Cyberpunk on sale. What an eye-opening experience that was.
I did see a video recently where it showed how the maps were already loaded in when you land on planets, so the loading screen when leaving the ship is utter useless. Strange indeed!
@@L321funnily enough, waiting in starfield takes a full 1 minute and 20 seconds. Which is longer than fallout 3, skyrim, oblivion, or even daggerfall.
@@deathtrooper2048 yeah and how often do you actually go into an elevator? you can spend hours in cyberpunk without seeing a single loading screen. the comparison is completely inappropriate
@cassieudy5718 Somewhat often, also cyberpunk has so many moments where the game has to load anothee location because of either a flashback or a camera and it takes way longer than starfield. Fast traveling also takes longer than Starfield.
Same. For 75 hours, I desperately tried to convince myself that starfield was a good game, but then I tried out baldurs gate 3 and was reminded what a great game actually looked like.
I knew I would hate the game as soon as I got to new Atlantis, the city was so hollow and boring, 98% of the NPC’s had the same 5 dialogue options or stared at you and then disappeared after walking away from them, I quit after 20 hours after I found the same exact outpost layout 3 times in a row with the same enemy’s and loot spots
It’s simple: Bethesda chose to make a game where the whole gimmick is how big the game is. But in order to get their game engine to do that, they had to sacrifice a lot of the things that make Bethesda games amazing. It’s 100 light years wide and and inch deep.
the thing with cyberpunk is that the problem at launch was technical. it was an unplayable mess because it was buggy as hell, not because the game design was bad. once they started fixing the bugs, the game underneath came to the surface: great writing, great direction, great art, great characters, great missions, player agency, world design, level design, seamless open world... yes, they added better AI, overhauled some systems, but the game was really really good without those changes. Starfield has the opposite problem. It was less buggy than everyone expected it to be, but the game design lackluster from top to bottom. zero creativity, wasted opportunities at every corner, boring writing, boring characters, boring world design, boring art style, boring quests, no game direction, no player agency, and no purpose to anything. If Bethesda somehow managed to remove all loading screens from the game and improved the UI so you didn't need to spend half your playtime looking at menus... the game would still be the blandest, most insultingly mid game released since... i don't know, i guess since Ubisoft released anything. And all the defenders at the time dismissing all the criticism saying "you're acting like this is the worst game of all time and it isn't" all I want to say was: That's the problem! I would respect this game so much more if it took *any* chances. If it aimed for the stars (no pun intended) and completely fell flat in its face, I would've respected the effort. I'd say they tried something and it didn't work, better luck next time. I could have said it's ambitious. That's what No Man's Sky was. I still don't like the game but it's so much more respectable than Starfield, yes, even at launch.
Exactly it’s equivalent to teaser not even a trailer. Soo much potential yet, hoping bethesda adds tons of stuff, id pay as long as it adds meaning content
Well i brought the it for PC from CDKEYS pretty cheap, yet wasn't going to be gouged another £35 to play 6 days earlier so i pirated it...thank god, godawful crap.
I got a free early access copy with my video card and a regular copy with my CPU. I was going to give away the copy that came with my CPU. But after playing it in early access I decided I didn't want to be cruel to any friends by giving them this game and making them feel obligated to at least try it.
Wasn't cyberpunk release 3 years earlier? I feel like they can potentially be in the same class. Comparing release review comparisons, But time will tell.
red dead only had like 2 loading screens and it’s the sleep cycle/ day night or the transportation like carriages or trains, and even then they felt like cutscenes than load time 1:43
Yes and the crazy thing is it’s about the same size game too lol. Starfield needs mods and a community club like fallout and Skyrim to bring old players back, most who played it on release have already dropped it, also think they kinda shot themselves in the foot putting it on game pass
Cyberpunk updated itself into a 9/10 title. With Starfield, it isn't apparent how that'd even be possible. To add insult to injury it's uglier at 30fps than a number of PS5/Series X titles are at 60fps.
@@L321 40fps to 30fps is the difference between playability and not for me - really think 30fps should belong to the 2000s, if not the 90s. At least not when this is a flagship current gen Series X title.
I don't know how the 30 fps hasn't been a bigger point of discussion. I just got the game recently and I really want to like it but I'm struggling to. It really ruins the immersion for me when looking left or right feels flipping through a notebook. It makes the combat really hard to enjoy as well.
Nah Cyberpunk will always be a disappointment for me. It’s not the deep RPG they promised for nearly a decade. Your choices mean nothing in 95% of the missions. Not a bad game, but not the game they promised.
Mass Effect already showed people how to make a compelling space game back in 2007. You don't need or want big procedurally generated planets. You need witty banter, engaging combat, solid lore, and a believable and powerful threat to tackle. Starfield has none of these things. It's like they wanted to be a walking simulator or a more boring version of No Man's Sky. In No Man's Sky, at least you could fly around on the planet and land wherever you felt like. No Man's Sky was not a fun game, ever. Why they tried to emulate their game genre, in a worse way, is beyond me.
I've been saying that as well that the game is missing tension and conflict. Good story writing including good game writing has both. However, with Emil as the lead writer it's no wonder that the writing and lore are so atrocious.
Getting all achievements in the original mass effect was the most miserable gaming experience I’ve ever went through. Thousand planets with nothing on them but materials which you gotta collect and an enemy hideout. Seems familiar.. never played star field but if there were a few massive detailed planets I probably would
So essentially they spent the last half a decade plus and hundreds of millions of dollars for a marketing campaign for baldurs gate and cyerpunk. Amazing. Its been months and theyre still sitting their asses on modding tools which the game desperately needs
The main reason I'm not interested in even picking it up is because of the random environments. If you want players to have different experiences, accomplish that by giving many possible paths, not one path that changes every time. It also completely removes the prospect of exploration too cause it's not a physical world you're discovering, just some amorphous quantum soup. Exploring a barren dustball SHOULD be fun cause it's SPACE, but they give you nothing to do in actual space, all the gameplay was shoved into cities. All the cities could just be parts of one planet and you'd get the same experience. The only reason I can imagine for them to add multiple populated planets is as an excuse for the loading screens.
I found the game at the bay, gave it 25 hours, deleted it and it still left a super bitter taste in my mouth. I cant imagine the feeling of paying for this ASS of a game. RIP.
Not. Being hard enough. Loads of us dropped £70 on this mindless junk only to be told we were wrong and we really need to play it more. Starfield has broken a lot of hearts and caused a lot of anxiety around TES6. I used to really like and respect Todd Howard; after all he was so pivotal bringing Skyrim into the world, but after Starfield… who is going to trust anything he says now?
You're a fool for spending that much on this, Fallout 4 is still functionally unplayable almost a decade later, 76 is functionally unplayable, where did your hope come from?
@@thehypest6118 Yes. Perhaps so. I had been playing Fallout 4 for a few months before and loving it. Not sure what is wrong with it to merit ‘functionally unplayable’. I really like it! Also Skyrim. I probably should have done more homework though, and will next time.
@@_indrid_cold_ I didn't mean to be so harsh, I've been trying to play it over the Holiday season and it's just been crash after crash alongside the usual woke, degenerate cultural collapse and I've been venting my anger on the Internet with no where else to put it
No worries. Starfield has really upset me and I think I totally get where you are coming from. It IS woke garbage. I tried to like it, but I just can’t.
Nope. You did it like I did. I spent 195ish hours in it, covered just about everything I could save for the main UC faction questline because the games stealth mechanics are garbage and my quest is glitched. I maintained a postitive disposition as long as I could. I don't believe in not playing a game because it's bad. Maybe I sound crazy, but my ADHD brain cannot tolerate unfinished things. I have to out the thought entirely out of my head. I HAD to do the new game plus runthrough to know how I feel. I had to experience all of that to feel comfortable expressing my opinion. Ultimately I'm depressed by this game and by Bethesda, no joke. I'm tired of broken, unfinished experiences.
The actual walking simulator (Death stranding) has interesting concept and at least tries something new that it ended up being a third person shooter game with open world and horror elements compared to Starfield that tries to be an action open world RPG that ends up being a walking + loading simulator
This game has been one of the biggest disappointments of my life, i was so much looking forward to it, decided to ignore the signs, but day 1, i decided i was not wasting time on it
*My complaints against Starfield.* 484 hours played. 50/50 achievements unlocked. The inability to loot armour and clothes directly off of dead NPCs ....a feature in all previous Bethesda single player RPGs since Oblivion (first Bethesda game I played). Or pickpocket clothes/armour from living NPCs like you could in Skyrim and Fallout 4. Few reasons for this. Firstly it was just funny removing clothes from people! Also looting armour from numerous dead enemies in a heavy gunfights was a good indication to let me know which fallen enemies I had looted. Also, how cool of a stealth kill would it have been to sneak up on an enemy in a zero oxygen zone and pickpocket the helmet from them and see them suffocate? Missed opportunity there. Another problem is that 95% of the human enemies you fight are ALL wearing spacesuits and helmets EVEN in breathable environments. They all just look the same ALL THE TIME. This frustrates me no end. The game feels like I am always fighting identical clones all the time. No visual identity to them. Just another person in a spacesuit with a helmet. And since you can no longer remove the helmet from dead NPCs you never get to see their face ...this is a big factor for me in making the game feel soulless. You can set the game to where your character is not visibly wearing the helmet and spacesuit in breathable environments ....so why does this not apply to NPCs? Other issues.... Merchants now stay in the same place 24/7. Gone are the days of Oblivion where you could visit a store or big place during the day...scope out the place for valuables and then come back in the night when everyone is sleeping and carry out a heist. Oblivion actually had NPCs who had daily routines, work during the day, take breaks and eat, go to chapels...go to a tavern in the evening before going home to bed. NONE of this exists in Starfield. In my 484 hours of play time on Starfield the only character I ever saw sleep was the Adoring Fan on my ship. Swimming underwater is another thing now not possible in Starfield. The pickpocketing has been heavily downgraded. You can't reverse pickpocket...place an item in the NPCs inventory, like a grenade in the Fallout games or poisoned apple like Oblivion. Outpost building is a joke. The only time I needed to build an outpost was just so I could deploy a bounty clearance thing on a planet not affiliated with any faction...so I could quickly fly there without interference and easily pay off my bounty. Limited melee weapons and no modding possible for melee weapons. No hand to hand weapons either. Dropping clothing items on the floor now shows the item as a boxed package instead of an actual clothing prop like previous Bethesda games did. Strange as this may seem....I liked using dropped clothing props as decorations in my purchased houses/places. Way too many unkillable NPCs. What I loved about Fallout: New Vegas was that pretty much everyone could be killed (even companions) and you could just fail the quest but the game still continues. The powers in the game are so boring I forgot they even existed. Times that I did obtain powers I did not even bother to see what they were. This is the FIRST ever Bethesda games where never actually used up all the hot key/favourite slots for weapons. Usually I complain there are not enough slots. But because the weapon variety was so lame....I only ever switched between 5 weapons. Some of these may seem trivial but when you add them all up it really becomes noticeable. The game really lacks the soul of previous Bethesda games. So much missed opportunity.
Interesting takes there. I have to ask, how did you manage 484 hours played? Really surprised you managed to get that length of playtime. Despite enjoying the game initially I found myself getting tired of it as I stacked up the hours in playtime.
@@L321 Well for the first 6 weeks I was out of work so had plenty of time on my hands. I also love Bethesda single player RPGs including Fallout: New Vegas that Obsidian did. Put thousands of hours into those games. I have a lot of complaints about Starfield, but still did manage to glean some good moments from it. But it is by far the weakest Bethesda RPG of the lot. Strangely enough, the loading screens never bothered me....they kind of been in every Bethesda game and were especially worse on previous gen consoles in terms of length. You could be waiting for over a minute to go through a door In Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion! Starfield was a lot more merciful by comparison. The only problems with load times I had in Starfield was when roughly getting to around the 200 hour mark of play time racked up, loading actual save files would take noticeably longer and the game would freeze up and crash every 60-90 minutes of a game session without fail. Would take roughly 3 minutes to get back into the game after a crash.
@@ricardojaye305I think the reason for the crashes is cause you haven’t done ng+. It has something to do with the way things are tracked and the longer the save the harder it is for the game to track everything you need to. If you do a new game plus then it should be fine
Bought premium, played from Sept 1 to Oct 1, played almost 200 hours and never touched the game since. It really did feel soulless and out of date. A bethesda space game should be exciting and freeing but Starfield is suffocating and boring. Can’t command companions and they’re all literally the same, items not having a dropped model, Trash radiant quests, game breaking glitches, zero innovation, loading screen hell, weak immersion, terrible main story…. Etc. The regression of Bethesda’s style, design decisions, competence, is enough to make a grown man cry… I bought Cyberpunk to fill the void, and it did.
It's the Cybertruck of video games...heavily promoted and hyped up, fun to take for a spin the first few times...then suddenly the novelty wears off and all you can notice is the loading screens and shitty writing
I don’t understand why they didn’t mask loading screens with animations like Jak and Daxter did way back on PS2. Instead of click ship, loading screen, click planet, loading screen, click door, loading screen, click hatch, loading screen, just have animations showing your character moving from one place to the next. A canned animation masking the loading, so you’re not taken out of the experience by a black loading screen. It completely breaks immersion. Back on X360, it was fine. Today, not so much. And definitely not this frequent. I can’t go 5 minutes in Starfield without seeing a loading screen. Back in Fallout 3 I could explore for hours before seeing a loading screen.
To me one thing that clearly failed is the fact you get loading screens while landing in to/departing from a planet. It completely blew away that feeling of realism and vastness of the universe surrounding you. Plus the fact you couldn't fly around the planet with your ship. Those two things alone made me drop the game almost immediately. Elite Dangerous in that aspect is way superior. I was very disappointed.
The coping is wild right?? Like guys you're not a part of Bethesda, you had no input in the game and Todd Howard doesn't notice you... don't take it so personally if people call Starfield garbage
@@LordBathtub Just like how Bethesda doesn't care about your meaningless opinion, but you three put a lot of emotion into those comments. Pretty cute and pathetic honestly.
@ScorpioVlll why are you getting butthurt because people didn't like a bad product from a multi-billion dollar company? Shilling that hard for Corps? Yikes
as someone who hasn't payed games made after 2012, it's such a culture shock to learn that loading screens are a thing of the past, especially in open world games
Loading screens are not a thing of the past, baldurs gate 3 is an open world game and it’s filled with loading screens although not as many as starfield
@@Mkrause762 but it also has like 100 times the content of Starfield. The core of the issue is their beyond bad game engine that is not capable of what every other engine would has handled fine.
@@gro967 Bethesda just has no idea what they’re doing they could make a fine game in their engine, fnv proved that 13 years ago they simply don’t have the talent
My biggest issue is the game is boring mainly due to it feeling like a chore with the endless amount of useless loot and boring dialogue. Todd Howard believes in quantity over quality. They could cut out 90% of the dialogue and useless clutter loot and the game would be better. Be better
I’m currently replaying Prey. What a great game!! Can’t believe Bethesda cancelled Prey 2 and used all of their resources making this crap! What a massive L for everyone. 🙄🤦🏻
People put too much emphasis on the empty planets. There's plenty of content in the game, and the empty planets are just there for resources and a few POIs, like they said before launch. Not having land vehicles, being forced to travel by loading screens in space, and the many overlooked quality of life features are the bigger issues, to me.
that's a cop out. no man's sky has empty planets too, and no one complains about those. because you can make interesting planets without life or materials. the problem is you need to put some thought and effort. this becomes especially obvious when you think about their lousy defense, or more accurately excuses, for the empty planets: that's it's "realistic" and that real astronauts wouldn't be bored. it's telling how much they didn't think about their world when they took this almost as a design philosophy but never even bothered with the implications. first of all, realism: while the extreme segmentation completely hurts the game in this regard, the more important point is that every planet is almost guaranteed to have some POIs, and that's mostly man-made structures. so that completely robs the player of the idea that they might be the first person on a given planet. funny that this is pretty much the only satisfaction this game as it is today could give you from a barren planet, and it even robs you of that. second of all, the reason that astronauts wouldn't be bored, apart from achieving things that are unbelievably hard in real life that the game doesn't even let you engage in (any preparation, any skill required to make it, the actual flight/journey, and as mentioned before the actual historic discovery)... would be the scientific results of landing on a celestial body for the first time. even on the moon that they have as an excuse, you can look at the craters and examine them, take samples of rocks and bring them home to study them. you can learn more about the moon's and the earth's history... imagine what could've happened, if instead of just generating randomized textures, the game actually tried to stimulate how a planet may have formed, what the actual make-up of it could be and what implications that would have for the history of its solar system, or the galaxy, as well as the make-up of possible life on the planet or around. imagine if you could analyze a crater, find out that it has residue that implies a collision from another planet, go there, analyze some rocks and find similar evidence but this time you have some indication that the planet may not have always been barren. follow the trail to another planet to find a completely unique form of life that looks like plants but functions like animals or whatever. but because this doesn't completely match up with the data you found from the other planets you realize this might actually mean that there's been a space-faring civilization that left thousands of years ago but left some of the agricultural lands behind and because of their unique form and function they managed to survive on their own. idk I'm just making stuff up off the to of my head but that would be why barren planets are not boring. because downtime in open world games are actually about discovery and following bread crumbs, something that Bethesda completely ignored with this game. instead it's get quest, fast travel, do task, fast travel back. there's no discovery and wonder on the way because there is no "the way" there. you just essentially teleport everywhere. and if they put any actual thought into the procedural generation, this would be the replacement, the means of discovery and wonder. if you want to procedurally generate a galaxy, you have to do more than textures. shadows of doubt procedurally generates a city and a population within, but it also generates cases and mysteries to solve, suspects to investigate, places to infiltrate to find more clues that point to other people or places, connections to make... it's incredible how much it destroys starfield in terms of procedural generation.
@blacxthornE Interestingly enough, the empty planets were one of the biggest complaints about No Man's Sky closer to launch. And NMS's planets are not empty, per se. Every few meters, there's a resource, something to collect, something to dig for, or something to scan or shoot. Plants that give you a boost or explode in your face. Starfield is going for more realism than No Man's Sky, but still "gameified," as they say. As for analyzing the planet for meteor impacts and finding signs of life... that's already in the game! That's why I say, they should bypass one of the main things that's pissing people off, which is having to run/boost pack for 1100 meters by adding vehicles. Also, a few random events wouldn't hurt, like being attacked by a group of pirates who happen to pass by.
Loading screens absolutely break immersion, going back as far as Everquest developers acknowledged this. It's just lazy developing at this point. There are ways to hide loading screens and they didnt even bother doing that.
What gets me is that the lore of the game has a massive space war between two powerful forces. That sounds like a way more interesting time period then what we got. I don't mind the loading but if it's not going to load anything interesting, then I have a problem.
They didn't do that because they already did it in skyrim. I would have preferred some insane alien threat that everybody had to fight against because it would have meant the extinction of the human race. Then, throw in massive ground and space battles, but the engine probably couldn't handle that. Hell, if they did ditch their shitty engine, we probably could have an RPG that allows ground to space battles, like the Original Battlefront 3 was promising except without the RPG part obviously.
I remember there was a very popular mod for Skyrim YEARS ago that deleted most of the loading screens (for example entering cities). Even i could run this mod with my potatoe pc, so i dont know why Bethesda couldnt implement something like it in starfield.
It's funny how people criticize this game in such a manner that indirectly points out that this game is supposed to be great. Not sure how it's not obvious already that Bethesda stopped making games; they make whatever it takes to deceive consumers and bring in the cash.
It's 2024. People still use HDD? Really? I'm skeptical but sure. If your PC has an HHD and yet also has the specs to run this, I would question whoever built that PC
Starfield is a young kids game, its tame, easy and you only need a double figure iQ to immerse yourself. It'll be dead in 6 months no matter how many life-saving mods get released..........you cant inject something that even BGS couldn't over countless games. If it were the male in a male/female relationship, it would be a eunuch
You just remembered me how much a great game is rdr2... and it was released so many years ago that bethesda should be ashamed of the shit they created after all these years.
Haven't played Slopfield, won't. Same thing happened to me with 76. I bought it ON SALE when they did their adding npc update. Yeah there's fun to be had but over a time, for me ALL the "little" things just started adding up and it just became an annoyance. Character getting caught on stuff, can't complete defenses. They release something theenn got to take it back because NOW they discovered it's broken. Doing a "patch" that allows DUPERS to lose their minds and CRASH MY game. Left it last year, NEVER to return. I had hope that 76 was just their sloppy attempt to get on the microtransaction train. Hoped Todd was going to put a little more EFFORT into his, "the game he ALWAYS dreamed of making". Yeah right, the Bethesda that made 76 is THE Bethesda of NOW. Talk to the CUSTOMERS like they're idiots? Well in my case they're RIGHT. I'm an idiot buying their games all these years thinking they'll, improve, innovate, apply lessons learned. Yeeaahh right. Well I won't be making that mistake again. I will think LONG and HARD before I give Liethesda another penny.
What you don't like the name Slopfield? Slopfield is pretty clever. Slopfield describes perfectly what it is. Well then Todddd shouldn't have made it sooooo...sloppy. @@thedonofthsht76-58
Fallout 76 is way better than Starfield. It is funnier and there are lots of things to do with other people. I hated F76 at dayone and soon after, but then Bethesda updated it with lots of things and i appreciated till now. When Starfield came out, i thought i moved forever to that game from F76, but after 3 weeks, i came to F76 disinstalling Starfield because it was boring
starfield has some great moments, but they are few and FAR between. You have to play for like 15 hours before something fun happens, then another 30 until you find the next fun thing. Its just not worth playing.
I agree with your points, I played Starfield 15 hours and then quit on gamepass. However, I really need gamers to stop comparing mid tier AAA games to games like RDR2 which cost an insane amount of money and used an insane amount of manpower far outstripping the capabilities of any of these studios. 2000 people made RDR2...500 made Cyberpunk 2077. I don't imagine Starfield was made with any more than 400 at best. In either case, the engine sucks, Bethesda needs to either do REAL work on improving it and find a temporary engine to building titles on until then...or abandon it entirely.
But like, Starfield budget was 400mill (200 development, 400 estimated total) while RDR2 had total of around 300 (170 development, 300 total), which is really close when it comes to budgets. Tho RDR2 did had 4x more developers working on it. My main question would be "Where the hell did all that money went?" as entire game feels more like side project made by unpaid intern and not by multi billion company with decades of experience.
Riddle me this, would you have continued to play the game if there were no mods, and would fallout 4 or skyrim be as popular as they are if they never had mods? In my experience, mods make these games playable. Skyrim has great bones, but lacking greatly in many areas. Can only play with mods.
But skyrim and fallout 4 were good games at launch and had felt somewhat complete. Bethesda will always make janky games and yeah mods make these games 1000× better so I'm sure starfield will be good once mods roll out but starfield at launch is just a lackluster game that was delayed over and over for what seems to be no reason
@@thegrove5259 yeah, both those games are pretty overrated. Neither of them were that good but they had just enough good to keep people interested. The problem is Starfield doesn’t have anything that’s worthwhile.
The biggest problem with Starfield, in my mind, is the fact that the endgame goal is to simply start the game over. Over and over and over. Its idiotic. The marines bug hunt quest should have been the main story.
@@doctorgrubious7725 I’ve played: fire emblem engage, redfall, tears of the kingdom, Hogwarts legacy and Hi-fi rush. Starfield was by far, the worst I’ve played out of all them. Sure redfall was awful, but at least I was able to get drunk with some of my pals and crap on the game, with Starfield it’s so damn boring you couldn’t do that.
@@fridaysatjons1097 ah, and there it is, I played some new games this year and some old, Ethnic Cleansing, Rise Of Kong, Starfield, Cities Skylines 2, Street Fighter 6, Mortal Kombat, House Flipper 2, The Walking Dead Destinies, The Kong and walking dead games I played to laugh at before never touching again, I’ve played more games than that but you truly do not know how bad those games are if you think starfield is the worst of the year, starfield does have redeeming qualities to, the texture fidelity has improved and the style and theme of the game is consistent and, to me, a science nerd, realistically sci-fi.
@@doctorgrubious7725 oh yes I forgot to mention the only redeeming quality of Starfield: ship building. The gunplay, planets, characters, weapons and story were all complete rubbish in my opinion.
Thank you for you leaving an actual honest review instead of recommending the game to me after telling me the game is bad. Every review I have seen, they tell me how bad the game is and then recommend the game. It makes no sense. Thank you for making sense. I will not be buying this game or game pass.
It's also kinda bizarre how No Man's Sky at launch in 2016 still had more lively planets than Starfield in 2023. And No Man's Sky today blows Starfield out of the water. It just shouldn't be acceptable for a AAA game in 2023 to be like this, while Hello Games is like 25 people And yeah the graphics and combat in Starfield are definitely better than NMS, but 90% of NMS players barely ever get into ground combat. The dreadnought space battles are super fun, though
No Man's Sky is actually a good interesting game ... the reason people hated it is because the end plot was not what they actually expected, you simply start over but it actually keeps you looking around. I play No Man's Sky to kill some time when I'm bored and it usually ends up turning into hours.
@@HybOjI think they're actually expecting to leave it like that... until there's a big enough modpack for them to steal and integrate into the standard game, just in time for another full-priced rerelease...
or the payed DLC. They cant wait to drop those in to the puddle of manure the game is now. I think the patches are so slow and shallow, because all team works on payed DLCs so they rake in even more money.@@madmorgo6233
@@madmorgo6233too bad the modders literally pulled out because the game is fundamentally broken to the core and allows for less flexibility in the game with modding.
Im so frickin dissapointed in bethesda. They wasted years for this crap which I couldnt even bring myself to play, but rather stick to good old skyrim. Wtf... I dont even expect anything from es6 anymore.
Don't get me wrong here, I did not liked anything what Bethesda released as of Fallout 4, including it, but Starfield one of the biggest failures was exploration part which suffered due to it having so many planets and so much procedural content, while skyrim would have single big map, just like it did before, so quite few issues could be avoided and it could be as good as skyrim was, well, it could be, but its Bethesda, they actually know how to make game worse... My expectations are really low and i'm definitely not preordering/buying anything bethesda releases without watching few review videos.
@@anshul2145 Starting with Fallout 4, that one was already boring one for me, extra generic, did not cared about story, everything else was just mech, finished it and forgot about it entirely. Following games went just downhill for me. Was just saying that Skyrim should not suffer so much due to this outdated creation engine and its limitations due to games base game mechanics. But heck, Starfield is made worse than previous bethesda games, so they went backwards on some aspects, so who knows.
@@Zripas they are taking too much time with es6 so I hope they don't end up like cyberpunk or even worse because starfield really set the mark for highly overrated shit game.
@@anshul2145 I just wondering if Starfield was just a side project for Bethesda, just to quickly make something and release it and remain relevant in game industry while they are working on ES6. As this is really bad half baked potato which feels like it was made by unpaid interns and not by multi billion company.
If you play the game offline and NEVER GET A POWER! the game won't bug out. It's alot better that way. I don't even use boostpack. It's more emersive. The game rocks, only ppl with no Imagination hate it 😇
The thing I love about most Bethesda games is being able to immediately run off and do whatever I want. I love creating different character builds. Starfield killed all that. I got bored with playing the main story line and havent been back. To me the game feels like doing work. Edit: Funny- leaving this comment got me thinking about Starfield again and I went back to get my money's worth out of it. I found some of the side plots were a lot of fun and went on to finish the main quest. Ended up liking and appreciating the game. Plus, spoiler alert: in a way by completing the main quest I gained the ability to replay with a new ability to immediately abandon the main quest if I want.
I can’t believe Cyberpunk would come to mind when thinking about good post launch pr. The entirety of CP first year was a slap to the consumers with crazy announcements like how well the game actually ran. I really hope bethesda will release a good dlc in 3 years so Starfield will be remembered as a pro players masterpiece as well lol
Cyberpunk was only glitchy and buggy, the actual core of the game was solid and fun and the story and world was build very well. Starfield has problems with the CORE of the game, so no, it wont be better in 2 years. Modders of major skyrim mods are already abandoning the game.
@@ceaserknk6640 key word, "was". Meaning that it is now playable an now good. Did you even read my comment? The core of cyberpunk is a solid looting shooting rpg experience, while starfield at is core is fundamentally flawed, no matter how much mods and content you add in.
I really dont understand some of Bethesda's design choices with Starfield. After playing Oblivion, Fallout, and Skyrim, you complete the games with 80+ hours and want more. Starfield though... I’ve played 5 hours and just get frustrated every time I try to process further.
The problem with Starfield is that it just can't be fixed. Luke Stephens discusses this in a video on his channel, and though I'm not an expert, I'll attempt to convey the information. Starfield's engine requires a specific object as a reference to spawn every object around it, or something like that. Some POS on bgs thought it would be a good idea to make a spacial exploration game where you cant fly your ship so they set the ship as the reference instead of the player at the game's inception as it would never move once its on land so this would be a great reference point, or so they thought. The entire game was coded based on this choice, and altering it to the player's character would mean a complete rewrite, which is just straight up not an option. So this design choice of making the ship basically just a stupid brick once its on land is what it screwed everything beyond any fixing. Modders abandoned the game upon discovering this fatal flaw, deeming it too much unpaid work to rectify Bethesda's questionable decision of not allowing free planetary ship flight. Bethesda avoids discussing meaningful changes, not because they are oblivious or indifferent, but due to the impracticality of altering the reference object. Adding vehicles or seamless space flying necessitates changing this reference, an unfeasible task therefore it is never going to happen. Again I'm not an expert at this i may have gotten a few things wrong or maybe everything XD so you guys should definitely check Luke's video on this and see this whole mess for yourselves. In the end of day what I'm trying to say is that starfield can't be fixed and Bethesda knows it, so that's why they haven't been addressing the main issues of the game. This design choice they made was undeniably flawed, and whoever endorsed it just shouldn't be working in this industry. This is ridiculously stupid and you can't be that stupid and still keep your job
It's Todd's baby/brainchild and he may have heard this reference argument but waved it aside (Hubris). So, I would shit-can Toddy on the spot, and "don't let the door hit you on the way out!"
@@chessophiler Todd gave the go ahead for it. He obviously was convinced this would be a good way to design the game. So it's not just some of the other random devs, it's his decision and his vision for the game ultimately.
So to add to your list :- Upgrading your powers; land on the planet, find the damn temple, scanner worthless. Enter the temple and float around collecting orbs, which won't count despite going straight through them, the only thing this would appeal to is a Moth! 24 powers x 10 lvs = 240 times x average 6/8 orbs........ What utter moron thought this would be fun, now travel to the Eye to get the next one plus a thousand more loading screens... Got to the point I loathe this pursuit, beyond comprehension, let alone do another character!!! Garbage loot; We've seen player numbers fall, and they should be focusing on keeping those who ARE playing, so WHY, just WHY is the loot so damn garbage?? If I get another melee weapon legendary I'll scream!!! One hard Target, shyte roll NG+ lvl 4, jack crap since, despite save spamming to death, I'm lvl 143 btw. Helmets and jet packs galore, and suits. But every weapon drop is a melee weapon or a fkin Negotiator. Fix the loot Bethesda, it's just not exciting. (plus it just ain't worth picking a lock, expert lvl or advanced, to get 2 ammo bricks WTF???)
The NG+ mindless repetition treadmill encouraged me to install and use mods for the NG4-10 grind. The final battle is fun and worth doing (even if only to unlock new weapon skills) but the braindead repeated temple farm is gaming cancer imho.
There are no phones, no delivery - in order to finish a mission you have to cross the universe, to talk or to give a whatever to a NPC... this is supposed to be the future? I think this is a major problem, they gave us the best game ever if it was 10 years ago, but the future they are offering is so anachronistic it looks pathetic! Common, buttons ans lights everywhere, no tech, the vision is older than the first SW.. where is the creativity?
Cyberpunk 2077 is a bloody masterpiece as of now. With the DLC it is one of the best and most enriching RPG experiences I've had, right next to The Witcher 3. I forgive you CD Project Red. The problem with that game was it was released too early. All the trauma that happened with the release of that game would have been so easily mitigated had they simply called their release "Early Access" instead. The point is that Cyberpunk was from the very start an intrinsically EXCELLENT game... CD Project Red just didn't have the chops to get the more GTA like mechanics, modern weapon AI handling and so on working properly from day 1. They should have consulted Rockstar on that stuff right away. However Cyberpunk the Story RPG was NEVER bad.
Even if all the bugs were fixed, and mobility on the ground and through space were improved, the writing and the fetch quest syndrome remains and 300 years in the future looks like now and in some cases less than now, since apparently no one has cellphone or bluetooth- or drives anything anywhere.
In starfailed, you get to play a loading screen protagonist, then in between scenes, you get an interactive loading screen where you get to play an astronaut. Amazing innovation Bethesda. GoTY!
It’s a mid, if not lazy game where Bethesda was just going to sit back and let modders fix it like usual. Only this time, a lot of modders are just saying “F this sht I’m out.” If you don’t even have the modders on your side, you know you F’d up. I found it boring and I don’t want to have to sit through hours upon hours of boredom to get to the good stuff. If you like it? Great. Happy for you. Enjoy it. But I’ll tell you one thing. While you may be standing up for Bethesda, many people are getting tired of Bethesda’s laziness and reliance on modders. Which is why Starfield is getting dragged through the dirt. While you could have better games from Bethesda, you stick to your guns and believe everything Bethesda poos out is gold. Demand better. That’s what we’re doing. We’re not crapping on the game because we’re Bethesda haters. We played Bethesda games for years. It’s really ignorant to label them as haters. We want better from Bethesda and they used to be capable of delivering that. This keeps up, we will turn into Bethesda haters because who wants games that are lazily built and require somebody else’s work to make them better? Worse yet, other people’s work they STARTED CHARGING FOR YET AGAIN!
I put around 30 hours into this game ON Xbox One S before I ever tried Cyberpunk, and the loading screens were AWFUL. Haven’t played it since I started Cyberpunk.
It being done in other games doesn’t matter due to the creation engine. I’ve watched a technical breakdown of Starfield, and “no loading screens” is essentially a game crashing impossibility. The “fix” is literally remaking the game in another engine.
There isn't a single engine except creation Engine that can support kind of games BGS makes. If they remade the game, you would lose modability, radiant AI, pickupable objects with physics and much more. Maybe they would implement some of these things in a new engine but it wouldn't be the same, it would lose the Bethesda magic.
@@teamacio9043 I don’t know if that’s accurate, given how studios modify engines to suit their own needs. That said, that would complicate modding in a negative way, so I effectively agree on the sentiment. This particular issue of loading screens can’t be fixed in the game they chose to make, however, and a lot of the magic from previous games was lost regardless of engine (for reasons beyond loading screens). Skyrim is my favorite game, and Starfield bizarrely doesn’t hold a candle to it. Weirdly, they made a game intended to be infinitely replayable, and it’s much less replayable than a game from 2011.
@@danshive4017 Case in point, CIG had to modify CryEngine in order to make Star Citizen. They've literally recreated it into the now called "Star Engine". But it look a long time, and a lot of money to do. Now hopefully this speeds up the development of Star Citizen, having the engine in a much more complete state, along with it's procedural generation capabilities.
For supposedly Todd Howard's magnum opus, as a game Starfield doesn't exceed in any field, it's just old tech with shinny new paint and awful optimisation. It's not a bad looking game, but it looks like a wash compared to Cyberpunk and Cyberpunk, unlike Starfield, can run decently on my old ass RX570
I tried this game on my hard drive first and it's basically unplayable. Every time combat starts the game just stops dead for a good 5 seconds to load. There are even more loading screens than we see. The SSD is what keeps loading screens at 20% of your play time rather than 50%
>Plays Game for over 50 hours >Gets bored >Bad game! No fr now,the game has some good parts and fun quests,however the main quest is just go from point A to point B collect this and this on the way. Nothing is even stopping you from that. The only fun missions are very few regular ,,sidequests“ and the faction quests. Now,weapon and armor design. There are around 10 weapons that are obviously the best,and 2 armor sets that are good. So once you get those,you don't need to get any other. The bigger problem is,is that you can get them VERY early on. This game just BOMBS you with supplies so you can just spam them. And another good thing about this game,is the drip.
The main problem really is the fact that Bethesda has yet to even evolve their "winning" open world formula, it has basically remained stagnant ever since Skyrim and Fallout 4, one of which is already a decade old while the other is on its way there. I mean... when you think about it, the writtings were on the walls all along, Starfield simply made them crystal clear, we're only now realising how outdated this formula has become and how unfit it was for this type of game. it was perfectly serviceable back in the Early/Mid 2010's, but over the past 7+ years, the genre and its standards have changed, with Nintendo arguably shepherding this change with Breath of the Wild, showcasing a whole new way to craft open world experiences. Honestly, If Starfield would've released 6+ years ago, EVERYBODY would be praising it to high heaven and none of this discussion would even be happening. But sadly, we ain't in 2016 anymore, what was considered "Good" or "Serviceable" back then no longer is today.
Except its a downgraded "game" almost on everything than previews bethesda titles and also feels lazy and unfinished, and very boring after some hours. Even sims 4 without the dlc is more fun than this 😂
@@Krzwastaken What is best about this? The melee sucks in general, low variety of melee weapons, no mods on melee weapons, no diving, water dont have splash, NPC in cities are ugly and act like robots, outposts are worse than fallout 4, story is boring, writing is bad, exploration is bland and boring as hell same POI on planets, Whole game feels like a game for 15 years olds PG And it says 18+, AI is atrocious and disgusting, follower sucks and are annoying as hell and you cant even command them like previous games. I CAN tell you MORE. Ether your brain has problems, or you are trying to troll cuz if you say this is the best game they made its a disgusting lie.
@@L321 what ever happened to gaming bro? What went wrong seriously? There's been nothing but unfinished garbage coming out for the last few years now but they wanna charge us $70 for new releases
@@iplyrunescape305 I loved Skyrim. Most people did. I've noticed a lot of people in the past few years trying to be edgy and acting like they never liked Skyrim. It was and still is a masterpiece and I couldn't care less about your opinion. The Elder Scrolls 6 better be good after making everyone wait over ten years for a new entry.. But judging how by how bad Starfield is.. It will probably be a flop
@@ScoobyMfDew you're taking it the wrong way. I never said I didn't like Skyrim. I played it and was on the hype train like everyone else at the time. But after the hype smoke cleared, the game was inferior to all the preceding games. You know it is true.
Starfield's exploration is boring asf when that shouldn't have been the case! I had waaaaay more fun exploring Night city in Cyberpunk than all the planets on starfield combined.
With limited space on my pc, I still don’t know why it’s downloaded. I’m just hoping for some good news! I like the simple things, pirating for the Fleet is fun to me, even customizing and strengthening my ship too, which I did not expect to enjoy… just when the fleet guys start spinning there ships inside the key, a asteroid starts getting bigger. You crash when you open a door, your head disappears, a pirate target is literally INSIDE of a planet while in Orbit, and you’ve seen the exact same cave layout 20 different times… You see I bought Hitman 3 too! I want to play that at some point! Maybe finally download Deathstranding, Get into Pathfinder… I just got DNF Duels for free! Starfield, Buddy, I hate doin’ this but unless you’re going to miraculously go from 3/10 to at least 7/10 in the next week, Imma be making some changes!
Im still laughing at those who thought this will be a game of the year when it launched 😂 I tried it on the game pass and the first 3 minutes made me uninstall it bcs i literally sensed HOW BAD THIS GAME IS
I beat Starfield and enjoyed it. Doesn't mean I enjoyed the flaws. The flaws were awful. But I wanted to be a space explorer and I'm only going to live once. So I was a space explorer for a couple months.
Payed 100 euro for it and the dlc pack before the game was even released (huge mistake), played enough of it once released to realise that I needed a refund immediately. This game is absolute garbage. It is insulting frankly - The modding community that Bethesda has been using as a crutch for their games (because without modders, nobody would buy any Bethesda game) can't even fix the pile of crap that Starfield is smh... Bethesda will definitely keep trying to make money using Skyrim hahaha
It’s a really nice game. I really enjoy it and love it lots to see. I can’t stop playing it. I can’t wait to see the updates for this year it will be great. The graphics and detail is great. I think starfield and no man’s sky are just as good but in their own ways.
I hope this year they will do updates as needed though. With no mama sky they have. With besthesda I don’t know. How do you think our future will look with starfield?? Because the only problem I have is the caves are horrible.
Lmao so you played for just 50 hrs which isn't a lot, Then watch other videos to make your video on how bad this game is but then say I don't follow hate 😂🤦♂️ muppet
A gripe I have is the art direction. They initially said they were going for a NASApunk aesthetic but then you have space cowboys and space cthulhus. Also a lot of the armor, clothing, and weapons look chaotic, messy, and impractical. Whoever has been designing the armor and weapons since Fallout 4 needs to be fired.
The game is not bad, just because it’s not perfect doesn’t mean it’s bad. It’s ok for a game to be just good, and that’s what Starfield is. The game has many many flaws but also it straights. At the end of the day is the only RPG in space with a realistic nasapunk aesthetic we have for now.
No it isn't okay when it takes 25 years, and you're literally a billion dollar company, hardware capabilities have greatly improved and yet this game is worse than last gen titles, there's no excuse for it the developers could've done much more, maybe Bethesda just can't make games, or they don't care enough.
@@Omiii-k2o the game is not worse than last gen games 😂, it’s definitely my favourite from them, since I’m not a fan of their previous games. The problem with Bethesda is that they are actually quite a small studio with only about 450 people, compare that to 6k+ of Rockstar games… their engine and their writers as well. But overall they have their charm and even tho I’m not a fan I always enjoyed their games for what they are. Anyone expecting a revolutionary or technically advanced games from Bethesda is literally braindead and don’t understand what Bethesda games are.
@@deniskasperovich8251 lol that's not an excuse not to improve they've got the funds for it, it's wasted potential especially now with consoles hardware greatly improved. Also that's not true there's plenty of last gen games with no loading screens, less bugs, better graphics, plot and attention to detail etc even the witcher 3 (2015) doesn't have loading screens for every interior or when entering a city and plenty other titles, it's just shameful. Recent ones like jedi survivor set in space looked amazing and did well at portraying alien planets, while starfield planets are so bland no effort put in it, and the lack of vehicles to make "exploration" better just proves Bethesda laziness, overall everything about starfield is outdated, the game concept is actually pretty good and I was really hyped for it, as I enjoyed the fallout games and elder scrolls even tho buggy they had their charm, this one is even missing that, and it's not the modders job to fix it.
I think I’ve figured the reason why Starfield has no exploration and why it’s not fun…. Is because no matter how far you walk on a planet, you have to walk back to your ship. The feeling of exploring gets killed, knowing that no matter what, you will always have to back track to your ship. Where as in Skyrim, you could walk, and wander, get lost… and keep wandering. With Starfield, you can’t, you have to walk back. And then… when you do wander… there’s nothing to find. That’s why players are desperate for new content because after you have completed the main quest, there’s nothing to explore.
What's your honest thoughts on Starfield? 👇
You need money
It seems people jump onto the bandwagon of hate for attention here. I mean it does feel like a beta version or something, but it’s not that terrible. Quite an amusing game still. Just maybe not worth the full price. These are my honest thoughts.
Can’t see the issue with it. I enjoy it. Couldn’t care less about the negativity train.
Fantastic game
Fantastic game
It's already been 4 months. Man time flies when you're not playing Starfield.
lmao I totally get you man. I watched paint dry, and it was wonderful, felt completely immersed and accomplished.
At least more immersed accomplished than when playing that pretentious garbage that is Starfield.
So you have found the secret of making time go by slowly?
What color was the paint?@@lalolanda8458
@@aboliokhazana7022 he's still looking at loading screens, he'll be with you after the next scene loads
@@jakestarr4718you guys don’t have SSDs? Sounds like a you problem. The loading screens aren’t even that much of a problem when you have a good SSD. Loading takes only one second when you go through doors, you don’t even notice that it’s a loading screen.
The funniest thing is that some of the loading screens aren't even actual loading screens. Like docking, opening airlocks, or sitting in your cockpit. They're just time wasters. Yes, some developer at Bethesda thought there weren't enough loading screens, so they added a few non-functional extras for good measure.
I liked Starfield for about a month, but then picked up Cyberpunk on sale. What an eye-opening experience that was.
I did see a video recently where it showed how the maps were already loaded in when you land on planets, so the loading screen when leaving the ship is utter useless. Strange indeed!
@@L321funnily enough, waiting in starfield takes a full 1 minute and 20 seconds. Which is longer than fallout 3, skyrim, oblivion, or even daggerfall.
Cyberpunk has loading screens as well, most of the elavators are loading screens.
@@deathtrooper2048 yeah and how often do you actually go into an elevator? you can spend hours in cyberpunk without seeing a single loading screen. the comparison is completely inappropriate
@cassieudy5718 Somewhat often, also cyberpunk has so many moments where the game has to load anothee location because of either a flashback or a camera and it takes way longer than starfield. Fast traveling also takes longer than Starfield.
The honeymoon period wore off and now you're actually looking at the game for what it really is.
Happened to me too, was super late to Cyberpunk and realized the difference
Bethesda should just focus on Elder Scrolls and Fallout. They are wastimg everyones time.
Same. For 75 hours, I desperately tried to convince myself that starfield was a good game, but then I tried out baldurs gate 3 and was reminded what a great game actually looked like.
@@bolillo5013I’m loving cyberpunk rn 😅
@@thedeed8740 just finished it myself, the game is great
Our engine lets us build really fast. - Todd Howard 8 years ago. In what universe?
In his obviously. Starfield is his shallow dream remember 😂
To be "fair" I am under the impression that the game had several restarts in its development time.
I knew I would hate the game as soon as I got to new Atlantis, the city was so hollow and boring, 98% of the NPC’s had the same 5 dialogue options or stared at you and then disappeared after walking away from them, I quit after 20 hours after I found the same exact outpost layout 3 times in a row with the same enemy’s and loot spots
It’s even worse when Todd Howard said that New Atlantis was the largest and most detailed game city they’ve ever built.
It’s simple:
Bethesda chose to make a game where the whole gimmick is how big the game is. But in order to get their game engine to do that, they had to sacrifice a lot of the things that make Bethesda games amazing. It’s 100 light years wide and and inch deep.
no word that means “this is it!” can describe how accurate this comment is.
I mean skyrims and oblivions size were also gimmicks 15 years ago. But the huge world was made with love and passion.
They managed to make a huge game that feels incredibly small.
This has been their thing after morrowind lol
the thing with cyberpunk is that the problem at launch was technical. it was an unplayable mess because it was buggy as hell, not because the game design was bad. once they started fixing the bugs, the game underneath came to the surface: great writing, great direction, great art, great characters, great missions, player agency, world design, level design, seamless open world... yes, they added better AI, overhauled some systems, but the game was really really good without those changes.
Starfield has the opposite problem. It was less buggy than everyone expected it to be, but the game design lackluster from top to bottom. zero creativity, wasted opportunities at every corner, boring writing, boring characters, boring world design, boring art style, boring quests, no game direction, no player agency, and no purpose to anything. If Bethesda somehow managed to remove all loading screens from the game and improved the UI so you didn't need to spend half your playtime looking at menus... the game would still be the blandest, most insultingly mid game released since... i don't know, i guess since Ubisoft released anything.
And all the defenders at the time dismissing all the criticism saying "you're acting like this is the worst game of all time and it isn't" all I want to say was: That's the problem! I would respect this game so much more if it took *any* chances. If it aimed for the stars (no pun intended) and completely fell flat in its face, I would've respected the effort. I'd say they tried something and it didn't work, better luck next time. I could have said it's ambitious. That's what No Man's Sky was. I still don't like the game but it's so much more respectable than Starfield, yes, even at launch.
Exactly it’s equivalent to teaser not even a trailer. Soo much potential yet, hoping bethesda adds tons of stuff, id pay as long as it adds meaning content
Great points there!
Bro you are the fucking MVP! People still shit on CP and I don't get it. And to say that both games are in the same class is delusional.
Nah there were definitely things inherently wrong with the game design.
Yep. I somehow ran the game pretty decently on a mid tier PC and had a lot of fun.
I’m embarrassed to say that I payed 100$ to play early and was bored a week later by the release date 😂
Well i brought the it for PC from CDKEYS pretty cheap, yet wasn't going to be gouged another £35 to play 6 days earlier so i pirated it...thank god, godawful crap.
It's ok there will always be idiots like you 😂
The hype was real. Ty for your sacrifice
@@sodapopinksi667 That's fine, from now on i'll pirate every BGS game.
I got a free early access copy with my video card and a regular copy with my CPU. I was going to give away the copy that came with my CPU. But after playing it in early access I decided I didn't want to be cruel to any friends by giving them this game and making them feel obligated to at least try it.
Cyberpunk > Starfield
both are bad
@@SunburnOmoricyberpunk is amazing currently
Wasn't cyberpunk release 3 years earlier? I feel like they can potentially be in the same class. Comparing release review comparisons, But time will tell.
@@_batmansvengeance same game that took 3 years to fucking add a feature that was supposed to be available at launch
@@SunburnOmorifeature aside, story and structure remained the same since 1.0. Bethesda haven’t shown competency in the last few titles. CDPR have.
red dead only had like 2 loading screens and it’s the sleep cycle/ day night or the transportation like carriages or trains, and even then they felt like cutscenes than load time 1:43
Yes and the crazy thing is it’s about the same size game too lol. Starfield needs mods and a community club like fallout and Skyrim to bring old players back, most who played it on release have already dropped it, also think they kinda shot themselves in the foot putting it on game pass
Cyberpunk updated itself into a 9/10 title. With Starfield, it isn't apparent how that'd even be possible. To add insult to injury it's uglier at 30fps than a number of PS5/Series X titles are at 60fps.
Luckily I play on PC so I haven't suffered the pain of playing it at 30fps. That's deffo another bad point to add to the long list.
@@L321 40fps to 30fps is the difference between playability and not for me - really think 30fps should belong to the 2000s, if not the 90s. At least not when this is a flagship current gen Series X title.
I don't know how the 30 fps hasn't been a bigger point of discussion. I just got the game recently and I really want to like it but I'm struggling to. It really ruins the immersion for me when looking left or right feels flipping through a notebook. It makes the combat really hard to enjoy as well.
@@thomHD Bro, most ps2 and gamecube games were capped at 60fps.
Nah Cyberpunk will always be a disappointment for me. It’s not the deep RPG they promised for nearly a decade. Your choices mean nothing in 95% of the missions.
Not a bad game, but not the game they promised.
Over 100GB of load screen - deleted from my Xbox
Mass Effect already showed people how to make a compelling space game back in 2007. You don't need or want big procedurally generated planets. You need witty banter, engaging combat, solid lore, and a believable and powerful threat to tackle. Starfield has none of these things. It's like they wanted to be a walking simulator or a more boring version of No Man's Sky. In No Man's Sky, at least you could fly around on the planet and land wherever you felt like. No Man's Sky was not a fun game, ever. Why they tried to emulate their game genre, in a worse way, is beyond me.
I've been saying that as well that the game is missing tension and conflict. Good story writing including good game writing has both. However, with Emil as the lead writer it's no wonder that the writing and lore are so atrocious.
@@abrahambobst4602 He is the writer for most bethesda games right? Including Skyrim? why hate him now?
@@Zackhron Because his lazy writing is even more obvious now then before.
Yes, we can look forward to Emil's writing in TES 6 (cringe).@@abrahambobst4602
Getting all achievements in the original mass effect was the most miserable gaming experience I’ve ever went through. Thousand planets with nothing on them but materials which you gotta collect and an enemy hideout. Seems familiar.. never played star field but if there were a few massive detailed planets I probably would
So essentially they spent the last half a decade plus and hundreds of millions of dollars for a marketing campaign for baldurs gate and cyerpunk. Amazing. Its been months and theyre still sitting their asses on modding tools which the game desperately needs
Someone said they're probably dragging their feet with the modding tools because they know people will mod out all the wokeness.
Bro turn down that obnoxious beat
Sounds really strange
Shutup
The main reason I'm not interested in even picking it up is because of the random environments. If you want players to have different experiences, accomplish that by giving many possible paths, not one path that changes every time. It also completely removes the prospect of exploration too cause it's not a physical world you're discovering, just some amorphous quantum soup. Exploring a barren dustball SHOULD be fun cause it's SPACE, but they give you nothing to do in actual space, all the gameplay was shoved into cities. All the cities could just be parts of one planet and you'd get the same experience. The only reason I can imagine for them to add multiple populated planets is as an excuse for the loading screens.
"not one path that changes every time" tell that to minecraft or lethal company or terraria
@@NemyacX The difference is that none of those games are story driven RPG‘s
@@NemyacX it also wouldn't make sense for those games because they have such limited scale, especially terraria. You can't compare these at all.
Couldn't agree more mate. Deleted it off my SSD and will never install it again. £70 down the toilet........
Big shame!
I found the game at the bay, gave it 25 hours, deleted it and it still left a super bitter taste in my mouth. I cant imagine the feeling of paying for this ASS of a game. RIP.
@@HybOj At the bay, you mean Pir Bay?
Yet here you are commenting on a star field video.. take your L and go cry elsewhere
Forreal man one of the few games i genuinely regret buying
Not. Being hard enough. Loads of us dropped £70 on this mindless junk only to be told we were wrong and we really need to play it more. Starfield has broken a lot of hearts and caused a lot of anxiety around TES6. I used to really like and respect Todd Howard; after all he was so pivotal bringing Skyrim into the world, but after Starfield… who is going to trust anything he says now?
Good point.
You're a fool for spending that much on this, Fallout 4 is still functionally unplayable almost a decade later, 76 is functionally unplayable, where did your hope come from?
@@thehypest6118 Yes. Perhaps so. I had been playing Fallout 4 for a few months before and loving it. Not sure what is wrong with it to merit ‘functionally unplayable’. I really like it! Also Skyrim.
I probably should have done more homework though, and will next time.
@@_indrid_cold_ I didn't mean to be so harsh, I've been trying to play it over the Holiday season and it's just been crash after crash alongside the usual woke, degenerate cultural collapse and I've been venting my anger on the Internet with no where else to put it
No worries. Starfield has really upset me and I think I totally get where you are coming from. It IS woke garbage. I tried to like it, but I just can’t.
Nope. You did it like I did. I spent 195ish hours in it, covered just about everything I could save for the main UC faction questline because the games stealth mechanics are garbage and my quest is glitched.
I maintained a postitive disposition as long as I could. I don't believe in not playing a game because it's bad. Maybe I sound crazy, but my ADHD brain cannot tolerate unfinished things. I have to out the thought entirely out of my head.
I HAD to do the new game plus runthrough to know how I feel. I had to experience all of that to feel comfortable expressing my opinion. Ultimately I'm depressed by this game and by Bethesda, no joke.
I'm tired of broken, unfinished experiences.
100% I’m glad I’m not the only one
The actual walking simulator (Death stranding) has interesting concept and at least tries something new that it ended up being a third person shooter game with open world and horror elements
compared to Starfield that tries to be an action open world RPG that ends up being a walking + loading simulator
This game has been one of the biggest disappointments of my life, i was so much looking forward to it, decided to ignore the signs, but day 1, i decided i was not wasting time on it
*My complaints against Starfield.*
484 hours played. 50/50 achievements unlocked.
The inability to loot armour and clothes directly off of dead NPCs ....a feature in all previous Bethesda single player RPGs since Oblivion (first Bethesda game I played). Or pickpocket clothes/armour from living NPCs like you could in Skyrim and Fallout 4.
Few reasons for this. Firstly it was just funny removing clothes from people! Also looting armour from numerous dead enemies in a heavy gunfights was a good indication to let me know which fallen enemies I had looted.
Also, how cool of a stealth kill would it have been to sneak up on an enemy in a zero oxygen zone and pickpocket the helmet from them and see them suffocate? Missed opportunity there.
Another problem is that 95% of the human enemies you fight are ALL wearing spacesuits and helmets EVEN in breathable environments. They all just look the same ALL THE TIME. This frustrates me no end. The game feels like I am always fighting identical clones all the time. No visual identity to them. Just another person in a spacesuit with a helmet. And since you can no longer remove the helmet from dead NPCs you never get to see their face ...this is a big factor for me in making the game feel soulless.
You can set the game to where your character is not visibly wearing the helmet and spacesuit in breathable environments ....so why does this not apply to NPCs?
Other issues....
Merchants now stay in the same place 24/7. Gone are the days of Oblivion where you could visit a store or big place during the day...scope out the place for valuables and then come back in the night when everyone is sleeping and carry out a heist.
Oblivion actually had NPCs who had daily routines, work during the day, take breaks and eat, go to chapels...go to a tavern in the evening before going home to bed. NONE of this exists in Starfield. In my 484 hours of play time on Starfield the only character I ever saw sleep was the Adoring Fan on my ship.
Swimming underwater is another thing now not possible in Starfield. The pickpocketing has been heavily downgraded. You can't reverse pickpocket...place an item in the NPCs inventory, like a grenade in the Fallout games or poisoned apple like Oblivion.
Outpost building is a joke. The only time I needed to build an outpost was just so I could deploy a bounty clearance thing on a planet not affiliated with any faction...so I could quickly fly there without interference and easily pay off my bounty.
Limited melee weapons and no modding possible for melee weapons. No hand to hand weapons either.
Dropping clothing items on the floor now shows the item as a boxed package instead of an actual clothing prop like previous Bethesda games did. Strange as this may seem....I liked using dropped clothing props as decorations in my purchased houses/places.
Way too many unkillable NPCs. What I loved about Fallout: New Vegas was that pretty much everyone could be killed (even companions) and you could just fail the quest but the game still continues.
The powers in the game are so boring I forgot they even existed. Times that I did obtain powers I did not even bother to see what they were.
This is the FIRST ever Bethesda games where never actually used up all the hot key/favourite slots for weapons. Usually I complain there are not enough slots. But because the weapon variety was so lame....I only ever switched between 5 weapons.
Some of these may seem trivial but when you add them all up it really becomes noticeable.
The game really lacks the soul of previous Bethesda games. So much missed opportunity.
Interesting takes there. I have to ask, how did you manage 484 hours played? Really surprised you managed to get that length of playtime. Despite enjoying the game initially I found myself getting tired of it as I stacked up the hours in playtime.
@@L321 Well for the first 6 weeks I was out of work so had plenty of time on my hands. I also love Bethesda single player RPGs including Fallout: New Vegas that Obsidian did. Put thousands of hours into those games.
I have a lot of complaints about Starfield, but still did manage to glean some good moments from it. But it is by far the weakest Bethesda RPG of the lot.
Strangely enough, the loading screens never bothered me....they kind of been in every Bethesda game and were especially worse on previous gen consoles in terms of length. You could be waiting for over a minute to go through a door In Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion!
Starfield was a lot more merciful by comparison.
The only problems with load times I had in Starfield was when roughly getting to around the 200 hour mark of play time racked up, loading actual save files would take noticeably longer and the game would freeze up and crash every 60-90 minutes of a game session without fail. Would take roughly 3 minutes to get back into the game after a crash.
@@ricardojaye305I think the reason for the crashes is cause you haven’t done ng+. It has something to do with the way things are tracked and the longer the save the harder it is for the game to track everything you need to. If you do a new game plus then it should be fine
Bought premium, played from Sept 1 to Oct 1, played almost 200 hours and never touched the game since. It really did feel soulless and out of date. A bethesda space game should be exciting and freeing but Starfield is suffocating and boring. Can’t command companions and they’re all literally the same, items not having a dropped model, Trash radiant quests, game breaking glitches, zero innovation, loading screen hell, weak immersion, terrible main story…. Etc. The regression of Bethesda’s style, design decisions, competence, is enough to make a grown man cry… I bought Cyberpunk to fill the void, and it did.
The fact that no one is gonna call you out on spending that many hours on the game is crazy and whats wrong with the world
It's the Cybertruck of video games...heavily promoted and hyped up, fun to take for a spin the first few times...then suddenly the novelty wears off and all you can notice is the loading screens and shitty writing
I don’t understand why they didn’t mask loading screens with animations like Jak and Daxter did way back on PS2. Instead of click ship, loading screen, click planet, loading screen, click door, loading screen, click hatch, loading screen, just have animations showing your character moving from one place to the next. A canned animation masking the loading, so you’re not taken out of the experience by a black loading screen. It completely breaks immersion. Back on X360, it was fine. Today, not so much. And definitely not this frequent. I can’t go 5 minutes in Starfield without seeing a loading screen. Back in Fallout 3 I could explore for hours before seeing a loading screen.
To me one thing that clearly failed is the fact you get loading screens while landing in to/departing from a planet. It completely blew away that feeling of realism and vastness of the universe surrounding you. Plus the fact you couldn't fly around the planet with your ship. Those two things alone made me drop the game almost immediately. Elite Dangerous in that aspect is way superior. I was very disappointed.
starfield fanbois be like:
don't judge my garbage
They crawl out like cockroaches in all the comment sections in defense of this crap game, with zero regard to valid criticisms of it.
The coping is wild right?? Like guys you're not a part of Bethesda, you had no input in the game and Todd Howard doesn't notice you... don't take it so personally if people call Starfield garbage
@@LordBathtub Just like how Bethesda doesn't care about your meaningless opinion, but you three put a lot of emotion into those comments. Pretty cute and pathetic honestly.
@ScorpioVlll why are you getting butthurt because people didn't like a bad product from a multi-billion dollar company? Shilling that hard for Corps? Yikes
@@ScorpioVlllhahaha you’re pathetic
as someone who hasn't payed games made after 2012, it's such a culture shock to learn that loading screens are a thing of the past, especially in open world games
I think it was all the schemes around that weirdo tod.
Loading screens are not a thing of the past, baldurs gate 3 is an open world game and it’s filled with loading screens although not as many as starfield
@@Mkrause762 but it also has like 100 times the content of Starfield. The core of the issue is their beyond bad game engine that is not capable of what every other engine would has handled fine.
@@gro967 Bethesda just has no idea what they’re doing they could make a fine game in their engine, fnv proved that 13 years ago they simply don’t have the talent
@@Mkrause762bgs proved it with skyrim and fallout 4 and oblivion and fallout 3.
My biggest issue is the game is boring mainly due to it feeling like a chore with the endless amount of useless loot and boring dialogue. Todd Howard believes in quantity over quality. They could cut out 90% of the dialogue and useless clutter loot and the game would be better.
Be better
I've never felt like I was wasting my life more playing a game than playing Starfield
I’m currently replaying Prey. What a great game!! Can’t believe Bethesda cancelled Prey 2 and used all of their resources making this crap! What a massive L for everyone. 🙄🤦🏻
It's a game I want to enjoy but it really does get old fast. Menus feel clunky and anything other than run and gun feels like a waste of time.
People put too much emphasis on the empty planets. There's plenty of content in the game, and the empty planets are just there for resources and a few POIs, like they said before launch. Not having land vehicles, being forced to travel by loading screens in space, and the many overlooked quality of life features are the bigger issues, to me.
Land vehicles is a must and hopefully this might be something they can add in later on.
that's a cop out. no man's sky has empty planets too, and no one complains about those. because you can make interesting planets without life or materials. the problem is you need to put some thought and effort.
this becomes especially obvious when you think about their lousy defense, or more accurately excuses, for the empty planets: that's it's "realistic" and that real astronauts wouldn't be bored.
it's telling how much they didn't think about their world when they took this almost as a design philosophy but never even bothered with the implications.
first of all, realism: while the extreme segmentation completely hurts the game in this regard, the more important point is that every planet is almost guaranteed to have some POIs, and that's mostly man-made structures. so that completely robs the player of the idea that they might be the first person on a given planet. funny that this is pretty much the only satisfaction this game as it is today could give you from a barren planet, and it even robs you of that.
second of all, the reason that astronauts wouldn't be bored, apart from achieving things that are unbelievably hard in real life that the game doesn't even let you engage in (any preparation, any skill required to make it, the actual flight/journey, and as mentioned before the actual historic discovery)... would be the scientific results of landing on a celestial body for the first time. even on the moon that they have as an excuse, you can look at the craters and examine them, take samples of rocks and bring them home to study them. you can learn more about the moon's and the earth's history...
imagine what could've happened, if instead of just generating randomized textures, the game actually tried to stimulate how a planet may have formed, what the actual make-up of it could be and what implications that would have for the history of its solar system, or the galaxy, as well as the make-up of possible life on the planet or around. imagine if you could analyze a crater, find out that it has residue that implies a collision from another planet, go there, analyze some rocks and find similar evidence but this time you have some indication that the planet may not have always been barren. follow the trail to another planet to find a completely unique form of life that looks like plants but functions like animals or whatever. but because this doesn't completely match up with the data you found from the other planets you realize this might actually mean that there's been a space-faring civilization that left thousands of years ago but left some of the agricultural lands behind and because of their unique form and function they managed to survive on their own.
idk I'm just making stuff up off the to of my head but that would be why barren planets are not boring. because downtime in open world games are actually about discovery and following bread crumbs, something that Bethesda completely ignored with this game. instead it's get quest, fast travel, do task, fast travel back. there's no discovery and wonder on the way because there is no "the way" there. you just essentially teleport everywhere. and if they put any actual thought into the procedural generation, this would be the replacement, the means of discovery and wonder.
if you want to procedurally generate a galaxy, you have to do more than textures. shadows of doubt procedurally generates a city and a population within, but it also generates cases and mysteries to solve, suspects to investigate, places to infiltrate to find more clues that point to other people or places, connections to make... it's incredible how much it destroys starfield in terms of procedural generation.
@blacxthornE Interestingly enough, the empty planets were one of the biggest complaints about No Man's Sky closer to launch. And NMS's planets are not empty, per se. Every few meters, there's a resource, something to collect, something to dig for, or something to scan or shoot. Plants that give you a boost or explode in your face.
Starfield is going for more realism than No Man's Sky, but still "gameified," as they say.
As for analyzing the planet for meteor impacts and finding signs of life... that's already in the game! That's why I say, they should bypass one of the main things that's pissing people off, which is having to run/boost pack for 1100 meters by adding vehicles. Also, a few random events wouldn't hurt, like being attacked by a group of pirates who happen to pass by.
@blacxthornE in other words, there are things to do when you reach the destination on planets, it's just a question of how you get there.
@@blacxthornEHoly shit get a job. Crying your eyes out over a Bethesda game
Loading screens absolutely break immersion, going back as far as Everquest developers acknowledged this.
It's just lazy developing at this point. There are ways to hide loading screens and they didnt even bother doing that.
What gets me is that the lore of the game has a massive space war between two powerful forces. That sounds like a way more interesting time period then what we got.
I don't mind the loading but if it's not going to load anything interesting, then I have a problem.
They didn't do that because they already did it in skyrim. I would have preferred some insane alien threat that everybody had to fight against because it would have meant the extinction of the human race. Then, throw in massive ground and space battles, but the engine probably couldn't handle that. Hell, if they did ditch their shitty engine, we probably could have an RPG that allows ground to space battles, like the Original Battlefront 3 was promising except without the RPG part obviously.
@@michaelclinkenbeard8040 not just engine but also programmers. You can give them Unreal engine and it will still be shit. They need new engineers.
I remember there was a very popular mod for Skyrim YEARS ago that deleted most of the loading screens (for example entering cities). Even i could run this mod with my potatoe pc, so i dont know why Bethesda couldnt implement something like it in starfield.
The game has to run on the Xbox series S, which is just a glorified Xbox One, which, is 10 years old now
Bethesda was hoping for the mod community to fix it
@@doctorgrubious7725 The Series S is far better than even the One X. You're laughably wrong
It's funny how people criticize this game in such a manner that indirectly points out that this game is supposed to be great. Not sure how it's not obvious already that Bethesda stopped making games; they make whatever it takes to deceive consumers and bring in the cash.
The photos you take with camera mode show on the loading screens. I have photos of me doing lewd acts at Sam’s funeral. Makes waiting bearable.
It's 2024. People still use HDD? Really? I'm skeptical but sure.
If your PC has an HHD and yet also has the specs to run this, I would question whoever built that PC
gear shaming doesnt make you cool
Starfield is a young kids game, its tame, easy and you only need a double figure iQ to immerse yourself. It'll be dead in 6 months no matter how many life-saving mods get released..........you cant inject something that even BGS couldn't over countless games. If it were the male in a male/female relationship, it would be a eunuch
You just remembered me how much a great game is rdr2... and it was released so many years ago that bethesda should be ashamed of the shit they created after all these years.
Haven't played Slopfield, won't. Same thing happened to me with 76. I bought it ON SALE when they did their adding npc update. Yeah there's fun to be had but over a time, for me ALL the "little" things just started adding up and it just became an annoyance. Character getting caught on stuff, can't complete defenses. They release something theenn got to take it back because NOW they discovered it's broken. Doing a "patch" that allows DUPERS to lose their minds and CRASH MY game. Left it last year, NEVER to return. I had hope that 76 was just their sloppy attempt to get on the microtransaction train. Hoped Todd was going to put a little more EFFORT into his, "the game he ALWAYS dreamed of making". Yeah right, the Bethesda that made 76 is THE Bethesda of NOW. Talk to the CUSTOMERS like they're idiots? Well in my case they're RIGHT. I'm an idiot buying their games all these years thinking they'll, improve, innovate, apply lessons learned. Yeeaahh right. Well I won't be making that mistake again. I will think LONG and HARD before I give Liethesda another penny.
Glad to see I’m not the only one. Even though you had a similar experience with 76.
God it's absolutely the most annoying thing when people make names like this for things they don't like 'sLoPfEiLd"🤣🤣🤣
What you don't like the name Slopfield? Slopfield is pretty clever. Slopfield describes perfectly what it is. Well then Todddd shouldn't have made it sooooo...sloppy.
@@thedonofthsht76-58
Guess you don't like my new name for LIETHESDA. Trademark, pat.pend
@@thedonofthsht76-58
Fallout 76 is way better than Starfield. It is funnier and there are lots of things to do with other people. I hated F76 at dayone and soon after, but then Bethesda updated it with lots of things and i appreciated till now. When Starfield came out, i thought i moved forever to that game from F76, but after 3 weeks, i came to F76 disinstalling Starfield because it was boring
starfield has some great moments, but they are few and FAR between. You have to play for like 15 hours before something fun happens, then another 30 until you find the next fun thing. Its just not worth playing.
hot take skyrim had more detail and better ai then starfield
I’d say the whole Fallout and Elder Scrolls franchise had more detail than Starfield.
I agree with your points, I played Starfield 15 hours and then quit on gamepass.
However, I really need gamers to stop comparing mid tier AAA games to games like RDR2 which cost an insane amount of money and used an insane amount of manpower far outstripping the capabilities of any of these studios. 2000 people made RDR2...500 made Cyberpunk 2077. I don't imagine Starfield was made with any more than 400 at best.
In either case, the engine sucks, Bethesda needs to either do REAL work on improving it and find a temporary engine to building titles on until then...or abandon it entirely.
But like, Starfield budget was 400mill (200 development, 400 estimated total) while RDR2 had total of around 300 (170 development, 300 total), which is really close when it comes to budgets. Tho RDR2 did had 4x more developers working on it. My main question would be "Where the hell did all that money went?" as entire game feels more like side project made by unpaid intern and not by multi billion company with decades of experience.
Riddle me this, would you have continued to play the game if there were no mods, and would fallout 4 or skyrim be as popular as they are if they never had mods?
In my experience, mods make these games playable. Skyrim has great bones, but lacking greatly in many areas. Can only play with mods.
But skyrim and fallout 4 were good games at launch and had felt somewhat complete. Bethesda will always make janky games and yeah mods make these games 1000× better so I'm sure starfield will be good once mods roll out but starfield at launch is just a lackluster game that was delayed over and over for what seems to be no reason
@@thegrove5259 the big modders quit starfield. It’s fundamentally broken
@@thegrove5259 yeah, both those games are pretty overrated. Neither of them were that good but they had just enough good to keep people interested. The problem is Starfield doesn’t have anything that’s worthwhile.
Id love the temples to have optional pvp. Starborn vs Starborn in ng+
Grifting at its finest. Dude says I liked this game, so I'm going to compile everyone else's complaints to get easy interactions on my channel.
To be fair, I liked it at first too. It took about 30 hours to realize how meaningless everything was and how it wasn't gonna get any better.
The biggest problem with Starfield, in my mind, is the fact that the endgame goal is to simply start the game over. Over and over and over. Its idiotic. The marines bug hunt quest should have been the main story.
I’m not gonna lie, I honestly think this was the worst game of 2023. Not a single redeeming quality.
How many games did you play in 2023?
I’ve played a lot and the top 10 list has SF nowhere near it because Ive see the actual bad games
@@doctorgrubious7725 I’ve played: fire emblem engage, redfall, tears of the kingdom, Hogwarts legacy and Hi-fi rush. Starfield was by far, the worst I’ve played out of all them. Sure redfall was awful, but at least I was able to get drunk with some of my pals and crap on the game, with Starfield it’s so damn boring you couldn’t do that.
@@fridaysatjons1097 ah, and there it is,
I played some new games this year and some old, Ethnic Cleansing, Rise Of Kong, Starfield, Cities Skylines 2, Street Fighter 6, Mortal Kombat, House Flipper 2, The Walking Dead Destinies,
The Kong and walking dead games I played to laugh at before never touching again, I’ve played more games than that but you truly do not know how bad those games are if you think starfield is the worst of the year, starfield does have redeeming qualities to, the texture fidelity has improved and the style and theme of the game is consistent and, to me, a science nerd, realistically sci-fi.
@@doctorgrubious7725 oh yes I forgot to mention the only redeeming quality of Starfield: ship building. The gunplay, planets, characters, weapons and story were all complete rubbish in my opinion.
@@fridaysatjons1097 See, I am correct again :chad:
Thank you for you leaving an actual honest review instead of recommending the game to me after telling me the game is bad. Every review I have seen, they tell me how bad the game is and then recommend the game. It makes no sense. Thank you for making sense. I will not be buying this game or game pass.
What happened to Bethesda after Skyrim…
The designers and dev’s who built it left
@@ravenwda007blue haired and retard developers
it was at Skyrim where they started to go downhill. Well, arguably at Oblivion.
@@ravenwda007where they go?
@@outforbeer retired
Leprosy > Starfield 😂
It's so poorly optimised on PC too, my 4070 gets like 70fps what a joke
It's also kinda bizarre how No Man's Sky at launch in 2016 still had more lively planets than Starfield in 2023. And No Man's Sky today blows Starfield out of the water. It just shouldn't be acceptable for a AAA game in 2023 to be like this, while Hello Games is like 25 people
And yeah the graphics and combat in Starfield are definitely better than NMS, but 90% of NMS players barely ever get into ground combat. The dreadnought space battles are super fun, though
No Man's Sky is actually a good interesting game ... the reason people hated it is because the end plot was not what they actually expected, you simply start over but it actually keeps you looking around. I play No Man's Sky to kill some time when I'm bored and it usually ends up turning into hours.
After playing Starfield i apologized to Mass Effect Andromeda.
They really need to work on this damn game so I can download it again.
they did nothing in 4 months. I dont believe they are capable or willing to turn the game around, like Cyberpunk or No mans sky did.
@@HybOjI think they're actually expecting to leave it like that... until there's a big enough modpack for them to steal and integrate into the standard game, just in time for another full-priced rerelease...
or the payed DLC. They cant wait to drop those in to the puddle of manure the game is now. I think the patches are so slow and shallow, because all team works on payed DLCs so they rake in even more money.@@madmorgo6233
@@madmorgo6233too bad the modders literally pulled out because the game is fundamentally broken to the core and allows for less flexibility in the game with modding.
Im so frickin dissapointed in bethesda. They wasted years for this crap which I couldnt even bring myself to play, but rather stick to good old skyrim.
Wtf... I dont even expect anything from es6 anymore.
This makes me scared as hell for ES6.
Don't get me wrong here, I did not liked anything what Bethesda released as of Fallout 4, including it, but Starfield one of the biggest failures was exploration part which suffered due to it having so many planets and so much procedural content, while skyrim would have single big map, just like it did before, so quite few issues could be avoided and it could be as good as skyrim was, well, it could be, but its Bethesda, they actually know how to make game worse... My expectations are really low and i'm definitely not preordering/buying anything bethesda releases without watching few review videos.
@@Zripas you mean you hated everything before fallout 4 or after fallout 4?
@@anshul2145
Starting with Fallout 4, that one was already boring one for me, extra generic, did not cared about story, everything else was just mech, finished it and forgot about it entirely. Following games went just downhill for me.
Was just saying that Skyrim should not suffer so much due to this outdated creation engine and its limitations due to games base game mechanics. But heck, Starfield is made worse than previous bethesda games, so they went backwards on some aspects, so who knows.
@@Zripas they are taking too much time with es6 so I hope they don't end up like cyberpunk or even worse because starfield really set the mark for highly overrated shit game.
@@anshul2145
I just wondering if Starfield was just a side project for Bethesda, just to quickly make something and release it and remain relevant in game industry while they are working on ES6. As this is really bad half baked potato which feels like it was made by unpaid interns and not by multi billion company.
If you play the game offline and NEVER GET A POWER! the game won't bug out. It's alot better that way. I don't even use boostpack. It's more emersive. The game rocks, only ppl with no Imagination hate it 😇
The thing I love about most Bethesda games is being able to immediately run off and do whatever I want. I love creating different character builds. Starfield killed all that. I got bored with playing the main story line and havent been back. To me the game feels like doing work.
Edit: Funny- leaving this comment got me thinking about Starfield again and I went back to get my money's worth out of it. I found some of the side plots were a lot of fun and went on to finish the main quest. Ended up liking and appreciating the game. Plus, spoiler alert: in a way by completing the main quest I gained the ability to replay with a new ability to immediately abandon the main quest if I want.
The biggest issue for me is all the god damn bugs. I’ve now had several quests where I can’t progress. This is still after the recent update
I can’t believe Cyberpunk would come to mind when thinking about good post launch pr. The entirety of CP first year was a slap to the consumers with crazy announcements like how well the game actually ran. I really hope bethesda will release a good dlc in 3 years so Starfield will be remembered as a pro players masterpiece as well lol
Cyberpunk was only glitchy and buggy, the actual core of the game was solid and fun and the story and world was build very well. Starfield has problems with the CORE of the game, so no, it wont be better in 2 years. Modders of major skyrim mods are already abandoning the game.
@@umadbroimatroll7918it wasn’t. CP was unplayable tf you talkn about
@@ceaserknk6640 key word, "was". Meaning that it is now playable an now good. Did you even read my comment? The core of cyberpunk is a solid looting shooting rpg experience, while starfield at is core is fundamentally flawed, no matter how much mods and content you add in.
I really dont understand some of Bethesda's design choices with Starfield. After playing Oblivion, Fallout, and Skyrim, you complete the games with 80+ hours and want more. Starfield though... I’ve played 5 hours and just get frustrated every time I try to process further.
The problem with Starfield is that it just can't be fixed. Luke Stephens discusses this in a video on his channel, and though I'm not an expert, I'll attempt to convey the information. Starfield's engine requires a specific object as a reference to spawn every object around it, or something like that. Some POS on bgs thought it would be a good idea to make a spacial exploration game where you cant fly your ship so they set the ship as the reference instead of the player at the game's inception as it would never move once its on land so this would be a great reference point, or so they thought. The entire game was coded based on this choice, and altering it to the player's character would mean a complete rewrite, which is just straight up not an option. So this design choice of making the ship basically just a stupid brick once its on land is what it screwed everything beyond any fixing.
Modders abandoned the game upon discovering this fatal flaw, deeming it too much unpaid work to rectify Bethesda's questionable decision of not allowing free planetary ship flight. Bethesda avoids discussing meaningful changes, not because they are oblivious or indifferent, but due to the impracticality of altering the reference object. Adding vehicles or seamless space flying necessitates changing this reference, an unfeasible task therefore it is never going to happen.
Again I'm not an expert at this i may have gotten a few things wrong or maybe everything XD so you guys should definitely check Luke's video on this and see this whole mess for yourselves. In the end of day what I'm trying to say is that starfield can't be fixed and Bethesda knows it, so that's why they haven't been addressing the main issues of the game. This design choice they made was undeniably flawed, and whoever endorsed it just shouldn't be working in this industry. This is ridiculously stupid and you can't be that stupid and still keep your job
It's Todd's baby/brainchild and he may have heard this reference argument but waved it aside (Hubris). So, I would shit-can Toddy on the spot, and "don't let the door hit you on the way out!"
@@chessophiler Todd gave the go ahead for it. He obviously was convinced this would be a good way to design the game. So it's not just some of the other random devs, it's his decision and his vision for the game ultimately.
That’s a weird way to make a reference object. What doofus came up with that? It should always be the player.
How did u buy the Navy Revolver as John ? Mods? This weapon is only available in Red Dead Online
There is a mod that unlocks stuff from the online in the story mode
So to add to your list :-
Upgrading your powers; land on the planet, find the damn temple, scanner worthless.
Enter the temple and float around collecting orbs, which won't count despite going straight through them, the only thing this would appeal to is a Moth!
24 powers x 10 lvs = 240 times x average 6/8 orbs........ What utter moron thought this would be fun, now travel to the Eye to get the next one plus a thousand more loading screens... Got to the point I loathe this pursuit, beyond comprehension, let alone do another character!!!
Garbage loot; We've seen player numbers fall, and they should be focusing on keeping those who ARE playing, so WHY, just WHY is the loot so damn garbage??
If I get another melee weapon legendary I'll scream!!!
One hard Target, shyte roll NG+ lvl 4, jack crap since, despite save spamming to death, I'm lvl 143 btw.
Helmets and jet packs galore, and suits. But every weapon drop is a melee weapon or a fkin Negotiator.
Fix the loot Bethesda, it's just not exciting.
(plus it just ain't worth picking a lock, expert lvl or advanced, to get 2 ammo bricks WTF???)
The NG+ mindless repetition treadmill encouraged me to install and use mods for the NG4-10 grind. The final battle is fun and worth doing (even if only to unlock new weapon skills) but the braindead repeated temple farm is gaming cancer imho.
Loot same problem in D4. Could have built on D2R, but nooooo!
There are no phones, no delivery - in order to finish a mission you have to cross the universe, to talk or to give a whatever to a NPC... this is supposed to be the future? I think this is a major problem, they gave us the best game ever if it was 10 years ago, but the future they are offering is so anachronistic it looks pathetic! Common, buttons ans lights everywhere, no tech, the vision is older than the first SW.. where is the creativity?
>open the video
>poster is retar- sorry-British
>close video
Normal *human* reaction to any video,
I never watch videos by
Influencers, Vtubers, or Brits
Cyberpunk 2077 is a bloody masterpiece as of now. With the DLC it is one of the best and most enriching RPG experiences I've had, right next to The Witcher 3. I forgive you CD Project Red. The problem with that game was it was released too early. All the trauma that happened with the release of that game would have been so easily mitigated had they simply called their release "Early Access" instead. The point is that Cyberpunk was from the very start an intrinsically EXCELLENT game... CD Project Red just didn't have the chops to get the more GTA like mechanics, modern weapon AI handling and so on working properly from day 1. They should have consulted Rockstar on that stuff right away. However Cyberpunk the Story RPG was NEVER bad.
and you need 4 months to realize it ? sounds more like i need more views and join the hatetrain
Even if all the bugs were fixed, and mobility on the ground and through space were improved, the writing and the fetch quest syndrome remains and 300 years in the future looks like now and in some cases less than now, since apparently no one has cellphone or bluetooth- or drives anything anywhere.
In starfailed, you get to play a loading screen protagonist, then in between scenes, you get an interactive loading screen where you get to play an astronaut. Amazing innovation Bethesda. GoTY!
It’s a mid, if not lazy game where Bethesda was just going to sit back and let modders fix it like usual. Only this time, a lot of modders are just saying “F this sht I’m out.”
If you don’t even have the modders on your side, you know you F’d up. I found it boring and I don’t want to have to sit through hours upon hours of boredom to get to the good stuff.
If you like it? Great. Happy for you. Enjoy it. But I’ll tell you one thing. While you may be standing up for Bethesda, many people are getting tired of Bethesda’s laziness and reliance on modders. Which is why Starfield is getting dragged through the dirt.
While you could have better games from Bethesda, you stick to your guns and believe everything Bethesda poos out is gold. Demand better. That’s what we’re doing. We’re not crapping on the game because we’re Bethesda haters. We played Bethesda games for years. It’s really ignorant to label them as haters. We want better from Bethesda and they used to be capable of delivering that.
This keeps up, we will turn into Bethesda haters because who wants games that are lazily built and require somebody else’s work to make them better? Worse yet, other people’s work they STARTED CHARGING FOR YET AGAIN!
3:39 Wasn't that the same man sitting by the fountain?
Straight facts. And your editing was unreal
I put around 30 hours into this game ON Xbox One S before I ever tried Cyberpunk, and the loading screens were AWFUL. Haven’t played it since I started Cyberpunk.
It being done in other games doesn’t matter due to the creation engine. I’ve watched a technical breakdown of Starfield, and “no loading screens” is essentially a game crashing impossibility. The “fix” is literally remaking the game in another engine.
There isn't a single engine except creation Engine that can support kind of games BGS makes. If they remade the game, you would lose modability, radiant AI, pickupable objects with physics and much more. Maybe they would implement some of these things in a new engine but it wouldn't be the same, it would lose the Bethesda magic.
@@teamacio9043 I don’t know if that’s accurate, given how studios modify engines to suit their own needs. That said, that would complicate modding in a negative way, so I effectively agree on the sentiment.
This particular issue of loading screens can’t be fixed in the game they chose to make, however, and a lot of the magic from previous games was lost regardless of engine (for reasons beyond loading screens). Skyrim is my favorite game, and Starfield bizarrely doesn’t hold a candle to it. Weirdly, they made a game intended to be infinitely replayable, and it’s much less replayable than a game from 2011.
@@danshive4017 Case in point, CIG had to modify CryEngine in order to make Star Citizen.
They've literally recreated it into the now called "Star Engine".
But it look a long time, and a lot of money to do. Now hopefully this speeds up the development of Star Citizen, having the engine in a much more complete state, along with it's procedural generation capabilities.
@@teamacio9043true
5:40 - "headshocked" - tell me you were overwhelmed by menu in one word.
“A settlement needs our help.” The game
well that was good ol days in fact... which is scary
For supposedly Todd Howard's magnum opus, as a game Starfield doesn't exceed in any field, it's just old tech with shinny new paint and awful optimisation. It's not a bad looking game, but it looks like a wash compared to Cyberpunk and Cyberpunk, unlike Starfield, can run decently on my old ass RX570
I tried this game on my hard drive first and it's basically unplayable. Every time combat starts the game just stops dead for a good 5 seconds to load. There are even more loading screens than we see. The SSD is what keeps loading screens at 20% of your play time rather than 50%
Jeeeez 😲
But the system specs literally said an SSD was needed.
On pc i had never problems , on xbox i had freezes every 20 min and crashes to homescreen also .
>Plays Game for over 50 hours
>Gets bored
>Bad game!
No fr now,the game has some good parts and fun quests,however the main quest is just go from point A to point B collect this and this on the way.
Nothing is even stopping you from that.
The only fun missions are very few regular ,,sidequests“ and the faction quests.
Now,weapon and armor design.
There are around 10 weapons that are obviously the best,and 2 armor sets that are good.
So once you get those,you don't need to get any other.
The bigger problem is,is that you can get them VERY early on.
This game just BOMBS you with supplies so you can just spam them.
And another good thing about this game,is the drip.
They called it game of the generation even when they knew GTA 6 was inevitable 😂😂
The main problem really is the fact that Bethesda has yet to even evolve their "winning" open world formula, it has basically remained stagnant ever since Skyrim and Fallout 4, one of which is already a decade old while the other is on its way there.
I mean... when you think about it, the writtings were on the walls all along, Starfield simply made them crystal clear, we're only now realising how outdated this formula has become and how unfit it was for this type of game.
it was perfectly serviceable back in the Early/Mid 2010's, but over the past 7+ years, the genre and its standards have changed, with Nintendo arguably shepherding this change with Breath of the Wild, showcasing a whole new way to craft open world experiences.
Honestly, If Starfield would've released 6+ years ago, EVERYBODY would be praising it to high heaven and none of this discussion would even be happening. But sadly, we ain't in 2016 anymore, what was considered "Good" or "Serviceable" back then no longer is today.
People expected Bethesda to not do a Bethesda game when they did a Bethesda game they started bitching about it
Starfield is not just "a bethesda game" it is objectively the worst bethesda game ever. Lol
@@Dungeoneer420 nah i enjoyed it more than skyrim
Except its a downgraded "game" almost on everything than previews bethesda titles and also feels lazy and unfinished, and very boring after some hours.
Even sims 4 without the dlc is more fun than this 😂
@@Caelumization wdym it probably is best game bgs made
@@Krzwastaken What is best about this? The melee sucks in general, low variety of melee weapons, no mods on melee weapons, no diving, water dont have splash, NPC in cities are ugly and act like robots, outposts are worse than fallout 4, story is boring, writing is bad, exploration is bland and boring as hell same POI on planets, Whole game feels like a game for 15 years olds PG And it says 18+, AI is atrocious and disgusting, follower sucks and are annoying as hell and you cant even command them like previous games. I CAN tell you MORE.
Ether your brain has problems, or you are trying to troll cuz if you say this is the best game they made its a disgusting lie.
all that expensive hardware requirements, and it still have loading screens...? damn that's an F
the game is massive tbf a 3-4 second loading time would be 15 seconds on the xbox 1
>Played for hundreds of hours
>"Game sucks"
>played 5 hours and stopped
>raaagh gets good n+1 hours in, doesn't count
@@Russian_engineer_bmstu Yes, both are ridiculous positions. Good job.
I’ll pick it up on sale next year when it has been properly beta-tested and patched .
What really gets to me the most is that Bethesda really stopped working on The Elder Scrolls 6 for THIS.
Dam that is true
@@L321 what ever happened to gaming bro? What went wrong seriously? There's been nothing but unfinished garbage coming out for the last few years now but they wanna charge us $70 for new releases
it's not like TES 6 is even gonna be good. they would not have screwed Starfield up in the first place. I gave up after Skyrim.
@@iplyrunescape305 I loved Skyrim. Most people did. I've noticed a lot of people in the past few years trying to be edgy and acting like they never liked Skyrim. It was and still is a masterpiece and I couldn't care less about your opinion. The Elder Scrolls 6 better be good after making everyone wait over ten years for a new entry.. But judging how by how bad Starfield is.. It will probably be a flop
@@ScoobyMfDew you're taking it the wrong way. I never said I didn't like Skyrim. I played it and was on the hype train like everyone else at the time. But after the hype smoke cleared, the game was inferior to all the preceding games. You know it is true.
Starfield's exploration is boring asf when that shouldn't have been the case!
I had waaaaay more fun exploring Night city in Cyberpunk than all the planets on starfield combined.
With limited space on my pc, I still don’t know why it’s downloaded. I’m just hoping for some good news! I like the simple things, pirating for the Fleet is fun to me, even customizing and strengthening my ship too, which I did not expect to enjoy… just when the fleet guys start spinning there ships inside the key, a asteroid starts getting bigger. You crash when you open a door, your head disappears, a pirate target is literally INSIDE of a planet while in Orbit, and you’ve seen the exact same cave layout 20 different times…
You see I bought Hitman 3 too! I want to play that at some point! Maybe finally download Deathstranding, Get into Pathfinder… I just got DNF Duels for free! Starfield, Buddy, I hate doin’ this but unless you’re going to miraculously go from 3/10 to at least 7/10 in the next week, Imma be making some changes!
Im still laughing at those who thought this will be a game of the year when it launched 😂
I tried it on the game pass and the first 3 minutes made me uninstall it bcs i literally sensed HOW BAD THIS GAME IS
I beat Starfield and enjoyed it.
Doesn't mean I enjoyed the flaws. The flaws were awful.
But I wanted to be a space explorer and I'm only going to live once.
So I was a space explorer for a couple months.
Payed 100 euro for it and the dlc pack before the game was even released (huge mistake), played enough of it once released to realise that I needed a refund immediately. This game is absolute garbage. It is insulting frankly - The modding community that Bethesda has been using as a crutch for their games (because without modders, nobody would buy any Bethesda game) can't even fix the pile of crap that Starfield is smh... Bethesda will definitely keep trying to make money using Skyrim hahaha
The Elder Scrolls VI Skyrim Remade
It’s a really nice game. I really enjoy it and love it lots to see. I can’t stop playing it. I can’t wait to see the updates for this year it will be great. The graphics and detail is great. I think starfield and no man’s sky are just as good but in their own ways.
agree :)
glad to see you are enjoying it.
I hope this year they will do updates as needed though. With no mama sky they have. With besthesda I don’t know. How do you think our future will look with starfield?? Because the only problem I have is the caves are horrible.
Starfield has so much potential. Unfortunately since the devs won't acknowledge it, we have to wait for the mod tools to release
Lmao so you played for just 50 hrs which isn't a lot, Then watch other videos to make your video on how bad this game is but then say I don't follow hate 😂🤦♂️ muppet
A gripe I have is the art direction. They initially said they were going for a NASApunk aesthetic but then you have space cowboys and space cthulhus. Also a lot of the armor, clothing, and weapons look chaotic, messy, and impractical.
Whoever has been designing the armor and weapons since Fallout 4 needs to be fired.
The game is not bad, just because it’s not perfect doesn’t mean it’s bad.
It’s ok for a game to be just good, and that’s what Starfield is. The game has many many flaws but also it straights.
At the end of the day is the only RPG in space with a realistic nasapunk aesthetic we have for now.
No it isn't okay when it takes 25 years, and you're literally a billion dollar company, hardware capabilities have greatly improved and yet this game is worse than last gen titles, there's no excuse for it the developers could've done much more, maybe Bethesda just can't make games, or they don't care enough.
@@Omiii-k2o the game is not worse than last gen games 😂, it’s definitely my favourite from them, since I’m not a fan of their previous games. The problem with Bethesda is that they are actually quite a small studio with only about 450 people, compare that to 6k+ of Rockstar games… their engine and their writers as well. But overall they have their charm and even tho I’m not a fan I always enjoyed their games for what they are.
Anyone expecting a revolutionary or technically advanced games from Bethesda is literally braindead and don’t understand what Bethesda games are.
@@deniskasperovich8251 lol that's not an excuse not to improve they've got the funds for it, it's wasted potential especially now with consoles hardware greatly improved. Also that's not true there's plenty of last gen games with no loading screens, less bugs, better graphics, plot and attention to detail etc even the witcher 3 (2015) doesn't have loading screens for every interior or when entering a city and plenty other titles, it's just shameful. Recent ones like jedi survivor set in space looked amazing and did well at portraying alien planets, while starfield planets are so bland no effort put in it, and the lack of vehicles to make "exploration" better just proves Bethesda laziness, overall everything about starfield is outdated, the game concept is actually pretty good and I was really hyped for it, as I enjoyed the fallout games and elder scrolls even tho buggy they had their charm, this one is even missing that, and it's not the modders job to fix it.
I played this game for free on Game Pass and I still feel like I was ripped off.
I think I’ve figured the reason why Starfield has no exploration and why it’s not fun….
Is because no matter how far you walk on a planet, you have to walk back to your ship. The feeling of exploring gets killed, knowing that no matter what, you will always have to back track to your ship.
Where as in Skyrim, you could walk, and wander, get lost… and keep wandering.
With Starfield, you can’t, you have to walk back.
And then… when you do wander… there’s nothing to find.
That’s why players are desperate for new content because after you have completed the main quest, there’s nothing to explore.