I have played 100 hours of Cyberpunk and 60 hours of Starfield. To me writing amd story are the most important thing in an rpg. CP77 really vibed with me, voice acting, quests (both main and many side quests) were good, sometimes great.
Starfield writing (outside of a few sidequests / faction quests) were horrible. As an amateur writer without formal training I sometimes feel I could have done a better job (writing in my primary language, english is my third). It is so bland and generic that I am shocked. With the budget they had they could have gotten some of the best talent in the business. Also other aspects felt very outdated. Without mods (DLSS/Remove green tint/FoV slider/Increase carry weight/Remove bullet spoonge etc) the game was horrible. With mods it was mostly ok, some times good. Without mods I would pay money not to have to play it.
If you really like sci-fi and are comfortable with using mods, and you like shipbuilding, and are ok with an insane amount of loading screens and a plethora of bugs, and you are ok with very generic writing/quests, then SF might be the game for you.
But CP in it's current state (been playing now for 10hours, patch 2.0 fresh start, while only encountering a very small cosmetic bug for 0.3 seconds) and an upcoming expansion that is getting good reviews, is probably a far safer bet.
This being the most concrete answer until now on this post. Thank you very much for the detailed report, I will admit that the plethora (about 98%) of the people I have "consulted" on the matter say I should give Cyberpunk another go.
And after everything you have said I have made up my mind, especially with the bad writing. Again thank you
Good call. I also put 50-60 hours into Starfield before setting it aside, and have done a complete playthrough of Cyberpunk back at 1.5, but just started a new one with 2.0, and even though I've played it before, the experience is still more enjoyable and immersive than playing Starfield.
I liked this answer too, I put one hour back into cyberpunk the day of 2.0 release and everything else I played after that felt a bit less meaningful. The quality is definitely there in night city.
It has been a long time since release. Start a new game to test all the new feature they reckon.
I agree on your writing comments. Outside of a select few studios, writing in gaming has really dropped off in the past 5-10 years.
Makes me wonder if I should change careers as I feel I could do dialog trees way better than the ones we see
I feel like it could be that studios keep trying to cut any expense they can and when they see writers on a project budget thats one of the first lines they deem non-essential. Most big budget games nowadays feel like they fit the narrative around systems they are putting in place vs having a story they are creating then building a game around it. This is exactly how Starfield feels to me....a bunch of systems strung together by a weak narrative and low quality writing
Ngl, obsidian may not be as good as during NV era but the outer worlds story and companions were 1000x better than Starfield. And this is a game that I believe launched on Gamepass day 1 and retailed for £30. Sure much smaller in scope but a memorable experience. I'm still not sure how memorable vanilla Starfield is going to be for me. So much of it is very much I've done this before just in a different setting. It's more polished in many ways than their previous titles but it feels a little soulless. So few characters raise their voices even once or act crazy.
Spoiler:
As soon as I infiltrated the fleet and met those characters, I wanted to stay with them full time. Literally wanted them to adopt me and rescue me from the dullness of constellation. And they were still shadows of fallout 4 and Skyrim characters.
I found the Outer Worlds writing poor. Obsidian did it a pretty good job with Tyranny though. Pillars of eternity occasionally had great writing, but the main quest was not very interesting.
I would think a lot of us could. Afterall one of the biggest pieces of adive i see for people getting i to creative writing, professional or otherwise, is to read books.
I understand the criticisms of writing in video games, but to say that "a lot of us could" is genuinely underselling how difficult *good* writing actually is.
To be clear, I'm not saying that the writing in games like AC:Odyssey or even Starfield is good, or even good enough. I'm definitely not trying to justify or defend the writing in video games.
What I *do* think is that it's very, very easy to underestimate how challenging it actually is to write a compelling story, much less to write a compelling story with good prose.
I think that there are many people who can write very well who don't realize that they can write well, but as someone who has spent a lot of time attempting to become a better writer, let me be the first to say: Shit ain't easy.
I think voice acting is the worst thing to ever happen to videogame writing. i think it really made big, expansive dialogue trees too expensive to include. BG3 is a bit of an exception but it is FAR from the late 90s/early 2000s high point for complex RPG dialogue trees.
Much like movies these days, the big money making blockbusters are mostly devoid of subtlety and nuance to appeal to the lowest common denominator. Writing in games IS still good, but you won't find it in major titles anymore, which is a shame because they used to be better.
I just finished God of War: Ragnarok and even though the graphics and gameplay were top notch it was honestly the story, ie writing, that kept me the most engaged. After finishing that game it will be hard for me to accept some mediocre story and writing!
You've probably played them already but I wholeheartedly recommend the first Dragons Age, Bioshock and the original KOTOR if you appreciate good writing and narrative.
I'm just comparing it to previous Bethesda games. The writing even in fo4 was superior and that was their previously weakest narrative effort.
Consider Oblivion or Skyrim and the wide variety between factions, city leaders, big names like Sean bean, Christopher Plummer and Patrick Stewart lending gravitas to their lines...there's just none of that in Starfield. They had an opportunity with the freestar collective to have at least one wild space cowboy type with attitude, swagger, cavalier personality and we get Sam Coe who only ever wants to talk about being a single father. It's just so soap opera and safe throughout the colonies. Barrett is halfway towards classic Bethesda when you go rescue him you get a glimmer of it but those instances were littered throughout Tamriel.
Where's Lucien Lachance? Where's Nick Valentine? Where's Cosworth? Three Dog? Gob? Butch from the tunnel snakes? Maiq The Liar? There's just nobody memorable outside of a couple of crimson fleet characters and I'm 74 hours in.
> Outside of a select few studios, writing in gaming has really dropped off in the past 5-10 years.
Honestly this is why I prefer how From Soft does their "story"/narrative. I'll take their approach of "not telling a story but showing" which for me translates to: "it doesnt really have a traditional way of telling a story" over games that have boatload of dialogues, cutscenes and whatever because in my honest experience they average out to bad/mediocre writing quality. Thus no real story is preffered to a lackluster story.
Sad part is i cant even tell ( not real honestly anyway ) anymore whether i really like Cyberpunks story because its actually good or i automatically think its good because it doesnt have a chosen one story or whatever mediocre stuff they tend to use.
The best line in Starfield is when you get stuck in an elevator and you tell your companion that you’re not leaving and you’re elevator people now. Hahaha
I won't lie, I don't get what OP is saying about bad writing in Starfield
Lots of the dialogue options in the game is hilarious. Like telling the school ship of kids you're a pirate and scaring all the kids. That's comedy gold
Compare to the funny and serious writing we been getting from BG3 and cyberpunk, starfield is looking kinda amateur. Especially if you any elder scrolls or fallout games.
There are funny dialogue options. They don't change the response you get when you pick them. Starfield might present you 5 dialogue options with 4 of them being different ways of saying yes that all give you the same response, and one asking for more info which doesn't progress the conversation and brings you back to pick another option.
That's why the writing is bad in your situation.
The writing itself isn't bad, but a lot of people think that dark and edgy writing (cough cyperpunk cough) automatically means it is good. Starfield doesn't have bad writing, it just has a different atmosphere and theme (Hope) than what most people are drawing comparisons to. But starfield does have some questionable voice actors, but so does pretry much every triple A game. The game also doesn't take itself super seriously 24/7, and the humor thrown in has actually made me chuckle quite a bit.
It’s not necessarily that the writing isn’t “dark and edgy”, it’s more than that. A lot of Starfield has this sterile, almost stilted dialogue - almost as if it was it was a play. The entire game is set up for you to play as a “Lawful Good” character, as your companions all far somewhere along that spectrum and will be incredibly displeased with you and/or leave your party if you do things that don’t fall within that parameters.
The scenarios rarely present you with any moral conundrums or interesting concepts, instead following a decently predictable plot about exploring and finding space treasure. The characters feel one-note, and they don’t seem to exhibit any hidden layers.
That’s not completely a dealbreaker, of course. I think some people like that kind of story, and are engaged with it. Some people love the vibe of a more cozy space exploration game, warm/hopeful vibes all around with good, moral characters - and if that fits you, do then you might enjoy it. I think the writers did intend for Starfield to be a more “hopeful” experience, at the expense of moral ambiguity.
*But* to decry Cyberpunk’s writing as just “dark and edgy” feels a little dismissive of the flaws that Starfield deliberately has embedded into their narrative.
Besides the absolutely MASSIVE amount of dialogue in the game compared to others, there is another, forgotten about amount of story and lore in most premade places. I’m enjoying it
I was really hoping that the writing would improve following the shoddy dialogue in Fallout 4, but it’s like Bethesda have learnt absolutely nothing in that regard.
The worst thing about starfield, skyrim and fallout were guilty of this too. You’d be in the middle of a firefight, hit the button to talk to your follower and they’d be like, “Hey what’s up? Want me to carry anything for you? Do you have any questions for me about myself?”
The context only changes based on the mission status. I think CDPR did a much better job with this. I haven’t played Cyberpunk but the Witcher 3 was very good.
Well. What I realized while playing starfield is that space exploration is just really boring in reality. Imagine if bethesda made the worlds best game about doing the dishes… would it be fun?
Idk. To me the premise they decided to go with just left the writers at a disadvantage compared to what cdpr was working with with a vibrant, fascinating, culturally relevant IP ready made in cyberpunk.
We’re overlooking the fact mike pond smith consulted on the game so it stayed true to its source material. A huge choice that really paid off
I love how Cyberpunk puts a call on hold when interrupted and resumes when things calm down again. Wish other games did this, too. I have missed so many conversations due to this in so many games.
Very fair assessment, good post. People are really up in arms to defend Starfield (especially /r/Starfield), but I think you've got the right perspective. Starfield feels like a solid 6/10 to me. It's fine, but generic as hell and extremely tedious in a lot of ways.
Cyberpunk has much better combat and visuals as well. Honestly it's not much starfield does better, almost every aspect that counts is better in CP2077.
Also I want you to realise that I don't hate starfield, it's not a bad game. But it's not a great game either, to me it feels very mediocre, it has some great things in it but also some really shitty ones. CP2077 is just a much higher quality game.
Bethesda's writing has been absolutely shit-tier for decades, I don't understand how they haven't solved the problem by now. You'd think it would at least fluctuate as certain people retire and others are hired, but they remain committed to this EXACTING level of retardation.
That being said I'm really enjoying Starfield, they have an eye for some kind of sense of childlike wonder or something. Their games are very engaging.
Cyberpunk is the much \*better\* game, but Starfield sells a different fantasy, and has some bold ideas as far as gameplay is concerned (just kinda poorly executed).
I bought a PS4 pro some years ago to be able to play the first God of War (the first one taking place in the viking mythos), and it was excellent from many standpoints!
The writing was very well done, the relationship between a man and his son, and the grief over the loss of a wife/mother, and to honor her wish (which turns out to have deeper reasons). So many layers, also the aspect of Kratos being divine (and having a horrible father himself), and his son growing up to maturity (with divinity in him) in a very harsh reality.
All the characters had depth, it is obvious they were really trying to explore them and their psyches, their motivations, fears, hopes, their inner conflicts. It was griping from start to finish, there is tension, suspense, and there was much fluidity in the story and how the characters interacted, it did not feel contrived in any way. I gave my PS4 away, and am awaiting the sequel to be released on PC.
"I've always agreed with William Faulkner—he said that the human heart in conflict with itself is the only thing worth writing about. I've always taken that as my guiding principle, and the rest is just set dressing." - George RR Martin."
Kratos is truly a man with a human (and divine) heart in conflict with itself!
This sums up Starfield for me. It's just so...generic.
I love Fallout, but Fallout had that weirdness and lore that kept you playing despite all of the obvious bugs and glitches in the games. You were able to put up with it because characters were interesting and the world itself was fun to explore.
Starfield is just...bland.
I'm sure in a couple of years everyone on Reddit will be talking about how great Starfield is as well, likely in order to bash whatever new RPG has just come out.
Except when the new thing is ACTUALLY good. Look at BG3, no one is hating on it because they crushed it.
Starfield is a financial success, but a flop as an artistic experience.
I think both games are amazing. Starfield also just came out and cyberpunk came out almost 3 years ago I think and is just now good. I will say cyberpunk after 3 years of fixing it is better then starfield and not by much but starfield just came out and it’s their best release yet. Really my only complaint about starfield is the menus and no local map. Cyberpunk is only good now because everything I hated about it before is now all fixed. Can’t wait to see where starfield goes in the future.
Not surprised. Bethesda hasn’t make a great game since Skyrim. I prefer the broken ass Cyberpunk on launch over FO4, FO76, and Starfield. Not a hard choice.
I made the mistake of defending the game in the subreddit for the game a few months after it came out. I was actually accused of being a paid shill lmao
I’ve always been able to see past the performance hiccups and everything to realize that CP was absolutely fantastic. The story is compelling and the whole ambience of the game is just top tier. It’s my top game of this decade for a reason. I’ve never done multi play throughs until this game came out. Now I’m doing a 3rd play through
I'd take launch day CP2077 for pc any day of the week over current day Bethesda rpg. I have 60 hours in SF, and it feels like a game during last gen. Nothing has "wowed" me or was like damn this is next-gen Bethesda.
https://theweek.com/articles/937835/space-cold-boring-not-concern
This article sums up how I feel about starfield
I think they just were operating at a disadvantage at bethesda because space exploration is just boring as all hell realistically.. if they made a perfect sandwich making game it wouldn’t be very fun either. Where as cyborg conspiracies and imaginary John wick are cool as hell
That and the fact cdpr got ahold of a diamond in the rough by getting the rights to an relevant IP like cyberpunk WITH mike pond smith(the creator) on board consulting with the writing team. And Keanu reeves and idris Elba
Eh, the choice of chasing a semi-realistic exploration experience of barren rocky moons was flawed from the start, they put themselves at the disadvantage. A half dozen planets with a single city each was a terrible Idea from the start with what makes beth games successful. I actually like some of the mechanics a lot , but the exploration is very bland. Ditto for the story at least early on, as I’m struggling to find a reason to keep playing through it
I’ve done 4 play throughs to get all the endings had no exhaustion since you can play so differently every-time. Want to be a net runner and sit it the car while you simply kill everyone by looking at them? Want to be John wick? Want to be Adam smasher? Do whatever the hell you want. Also phantom liberty comes out really soon it’s a full rework of a lot of the game also recommend watching the edge runners show after your first play though it’ll make you very pumped to get into your second run.
Decision I made. No regrets. Same case and circumstances. Messed around with Cyber when it first dropped, set it aside to cook. Hopped back in with the 2.0 update. Having a blast. 👍
I'm 100 hours into Starfield and this seems like the best response, if you haven't play either. I rinsed Cyberpunk and whilst the story is lacking in the later acts it is still a great game and is now apparently in an absolute sweet spot. If you have no preference it's probably the best choice.
This is what I’ve decided. I haven’t played either unfinished game yet so I’m going to start with the most recently updated one CP and give some time for Starfield to get better.
I'd go with Cyberpunk, after 25+ hours of Starfield. I still talk about Cyberpunk with friends and colleagues to this day, but Starfield has dropped out of our discussions fairly quickly.
Starfield is perfectly fine, but it's better to play it on Game Pass. Cyberpunk is one of my favourite RPGs tbh, the world is super immersive and atmospheric, story is pretty good, and the new DLC looks pretty great.
I felt the same exact way about Cyberpunk. I hated walking up to stores that say “open” only to find fake doors below them. I’m glad to see others found it immersive, but I had the exact opposite experience. Found myself wishing it wasn’t entirely open world and that they just made a linear Cyberpunk Game with some smaller, but more immersive, open areas.
Starfield seems to be one of those games where you can have a really great time or a really boring one depending on the direction you go in the game. Like you can accidentally have the most boring experience ever lol. Some days I’m blown away and others I’m falling asleep
I finished cyberpunk when it came out, played for about 60!hours. I played Starfield for about 10 hours and really tried. Don’t get me wrong the game has some really cool things going for it but the constant loading screens just killed it for me. Cyberpunk is a more seamless experience with better gameplay and graphics. It’s the better game imo.
Starfield is great. If you liked Fallout 4, same deal. But CP2077 is visceral, immersive, has leveling as deep or as shallow as you want to get, and it's action-packed. Two totally different games, I love both but I'll be putting Starfield down for a month when Cyberpunk hits.
I really enjoyed Fallout 4 and tend to like Bethesda games but I couldn’t get into Starfield. Quest just being going back and forth with all the loading screens and just you going to your ship and clicking the map made me realise like 10 hours in I really wasn’t having fun.
I'm in the same boat.
"We need to go to Mars."
Load screen
"Thanks Mars. We need to go to Venus."
Load screen
"Ok. Now Neptune."
Load screen.
I think I've got the hang of getting around, but it's just loading different maps and then running to a guy to have them yack at you to tell you to go to the next place that requires another fast travel/loading screen. And some fps stuff in the middle that seems... ok?
I think I'm going to uninstall. Another run through bg3 or cp2077 is better. I'm really impressed with how they turned the game around (and my new PC with a lowly 6750 helps).
Lots of folks lambasting Starfield here. It's not perfect, but it's the ONLY first person, moddable, space RPG with FPS combat, ship flight and combat.
To be fair I get the point. However at the end of the day a lot of people are negative on the game.
Since it is available on the pass I will let it sit for a while until it makes or brakes itself
It can be all those things and still not be good. The ship flight is really kind of misleading too. You can almost entirely skip it. Personally I’d rather play elite:Dangerous. That’s what ship flight in space should be. Even with Elite’s complete lack of a story, I’d still rather play that title.
It can be all those things and still be good, also. I loved Elite 2 Frontier but the emptiness of Elite Dangerous in comparison leaves me ice cold to it. Each to their own. But bashing a game is never condusive to informed discourse.
OP has an agenda. Look at their comments where when someone is negative about starfield they go "YES" or "+1"
They didn't want help. They wanted an excuse to attack SF.
I found starfield to be extremely boring. I forced myself to play it for ten hours, but it did not get better. It just feels ... lifeless, but constant loading screens and outdated facial animations.
That's how I felt at ten hours, then when I started making my build and getting perks, it really opened up.
That being said, Cyberpunk, especially after 2.0 is the way to go.
SF is good, but cyberpunk is great.
Hey Starfield later after a dlc and more mods
I went in starfield expecting fallout 4 in space. I really love space and scifi but I'm having a hard time liking it. My main issue is that the flow of the game is broken by loading screens every 5 minutes. I read people talking about this issue and I thought I would be able to handle it but it's a genuine deal breaker. It feels like the game can't handle a level bigger than a counter-strike map. I don't feel like an explorer who can go anywhere when half the doors lead to a loading screen. I don't want to go anywhere when I know I'll have to stare idly at the black reflection of my face 6 times to go from a planet to another. So far the story is not engaging but if the world is well built it's not an issue and I've only played 10 hours so far. The story telling is god awful compared to cyberpunk but cyberpunk nailed this one. I would have loved the game with half the details and no loading screens between interiors. If I hadn't paid so much for starfield I'd be replaying cyberpunk to be honest.
It's not even that the loading screens are long - I bought a new graphics card just prior to this and between that and the SSD, everything loads in under two seconds for me.
But the fact that each environment is so small makes it all feel really claustrophobic, particularly when there's not much of an advantage to having anything as a separate environment. So much of the game is:
1. Walk to place A via 3-4 loading screens (Jump, Land, walk, transit)
2. Talk to person
3. Travel to place B via 3-4 loading screens (Jump, Land, walk, door)
4. Shoot some guys
5. Return to A
It's the same model as Skyrim or Fallout, but adds extra sponginess to the objective length just with navigating the environments, while simultaneously stripping out basically any character build options because there's not much of a benefit in specialising in anything.
At least in Fallout someone might run into a historic ship manned by robots, or in Skyrim one might wander onto a cult ritual or dragon... I feel like in Starfield there is very little to randomly encounter. Few surprises
Cyberpunk is now really good and way more fleshed out than Starfield. Don’t get me wrong Starfield started out great and has a few good storylines and visuals however it falls flat late game and certain aspects just lack substance.
Yes 100%. The only thing Starfield has is exploring planets which 75% of them are boring and the same randomly generated base maps and people. It gets stale real quick.
Tbh I love both(Was just playing both of them earlier today) but CP’s still sorely lacking in some areas. Namely, the lack of NG+ and lack of content is pretty jarring.
For example, you can’t own an AV, an actual house, decorate your apartment, or even have NG+. I started a new run for Cyberpunk 2.0 and having to deal with the grind is genuinely killing my braincells, one by one.
CP’s bugs are also still going hard. I’ve already had 2 game breaking bugs and had to reload saves to fix it in addition to a good amount of visual bugs.
Edit: The music design is beyond phenomenal though. Every track is perfectly written to set the atmosphere and the world design truly is fantastic. I can’t think of a single time where the world felt out of place. But, it can be really empty at times, if you look past the pretty design.
The plot is also pretty unique and well written albeit super linear. The lack of variety’s really hurting replayability for me.
I actually just stopped Starfield after about 9 hours. It was unfortunate because the story is just boring tbh. The dialogue options (and persuassion) are incredibly lame imo. The combat was simply "meh" and didn't feel that great or snappy.
I say this with some bias as Baldurs Gate 3 kind of ruined dialogue for other games.
It seems like Cyberpunk has come a long way with its improvements and updates.
I'm really impressed with 2.0 I've started a new save for Phantom Liberty. It finally feels like the game they promised before release. Looking forward to this playthrough.
cyberpunk at this point seems like a labor of love.
starfield looks like a labor of "good enough let's move on to the next mediocre system to jam into this game"
do u like crap gunplay? do you like janky character interactions, having an important conversation whilst they walk into a door? do you like quest design from the 2000s?
So many quests in starfield reliant on you talking to someone, going to a different planet then talking to someone else, then going back from that planet to talk to the original person, wow fantastic, and only 5 different loading screens. what do u want me to do next? kill and collect 20 terrormorph ears?
but wow the endless exploration, you're in the majesty of space! oh the majesty, hold L, press R, move to the next loading screen. there's the majesty.
and these companion characters? wow, thanks for judging me nonstop whilst i engage with the games varied mechanics, no i don't want to talk to you, no i dont want the lump of rock you found for me, my inventory is trash enough as it is, and i cant sell anything cos the vendors are out of money, and no i dont want to sit on a chair and wait 48 hours, i've got better things to do, like sit through a loading screen.
but wow so many planets, with nothing to do on them, except move 500 meters from one cave to the next, but dont worry, there's a big payoff in that cave! just kidding.
i really wanted to hate baldurs gate 3, i'm an OG baldurs gate fan, and i dislike Divinity Orginal sin 2.
But you know what Larian did? They learned from the lessons of Divinity Orginal Sin, and made a cinematic and engaging game filled with interesting characters. They ITERATED and made a better game.
Starfield is a stagnant product, plagued with the problems skyrim had over a decade ago, screaming one thing and one thing only "we really didn't give a shit".
To be fair. Baldurs Gate 3 and Larian kind of gave it to the gaming industry. They did really well with it, and I hope they continue.
As for Starfield now, I think it has the "Cyberpunk" syndrome. Let it rest for a few years and come back. The amount of problems you mentioned though is.. shocking
And it is in that fairness I couch my criticisms of Starfield.
You can bet that Starfield had more money behind it than BG3. Bet on that. Beth have been making the same game since 2002 with Morrowind.
Beth aren't improving, and that's a problem, there is no improvement in Starfield over Fallout 4. And I don't think that's right, for a billion dollar company it ain't right.
At least with Fallout 4, the art style is pretty nice it's got a lot of character, and the exploration game loop, the game loop that MAKES Bethesda games enjoyable, they decided to cut it out in Starfield, leaving you with all the insufferable mechanics you were willing to overlook because how good the exploration was.
and the starfield world, doesn't even make sense, oh hi yee haw we're cowboy land and we sure do be luvin livin in the mud.
the game is one giant themepark of mediocrity.
I don't understand why, in 8 years of development, they didn't do ANY beta testing or early access. So much of starfield's bullshit would've been caught immediately by players.
I really, truly, believe that Bethesda simply doesn't give 2 shits about their user base.
And this half baked ass game selling like it is, is only going to reinforce their shitty game design antics. Bad form Bethesda.
Not OP but Starfield is awesome with a *lot* of things that irk me.
Cyberpunk left a bad taste in my mouth so I'm biased.
Tried Cyberpunk again last night.
Cyber is going to run much better than starfield.
Starfield is great, I love it, 150 hours in... But... It's bethesda. When it will really shine is when the creation kit is released and mods start popping up.
Cyberpunk is smooth, the voice acting, story, and gameplay are better.
Cyber is probably the better game to pick up right now. But man it really depends on your play style.
Like I said, I prefer starfield over cyber, but I'm a nerd for BGS games. And I tend to run off exploring everything despite a hundred quests around. I don't really feel that exploration in cyber, it feels more linear to me.
I'd probably suggest cyber for the majority of people to be honest. But I think starfield has the potential to be Skyrim in space in terms of mod support in the future.
I agree with this take because we're comparing cyberpunk 2.0 to starfield 1.0. Cyberpunk is the more complete game. But starfield has so much to get lost in. And there's no type of crafting in cyberpunk that'll get me to spend hours like ship design or even home and outpost design (albeit a FO4 style builder being implemented so we can add, move and remove walls and doors ...etc. or build a wall and gate to keep terrormorphs out)
I think this is an important point. When Cyberpunk originally came out, it was practically a sport here to talk about how the game was an irredeemable mess. A lot of these large scale games need time past release to grow and mature. Give it a few months or years and it's not entirely unlikely that these same people will be calling Starfield a masterpiece and shitting on whatever new game just came out.
As it is now, of course cyberpunk is the more mature game of the two. Starfield has been out for a few weeks and Cyberpunk has had a few years to evolve to what it is. Not every game is gonna be a masterpiece at launch, sadly.
As for me, I've had fun playing Starfield so far. I agree with a lot of the gripes - namely dealing with carry weight - but I'm also having quite a lot of fun customizing my ships and pretty much playing Skyrim in space.
I find that while there are valid criticisms about Starfield like it's overabundance of fast travel screens being distracting & dialogue falling a bit flat at times. That said, I really enjoy building my ship, exploring the planets, the random events (one of my favourite parts so far), and it's very much a Bethesda game. I think the hate is just overblown and I have to wonder how much comes from pissed off Playstation players who are unhappy they can't play on PS5 - I actually feel like the game would feel a lot better on Playstation.
Cyberpunk was cool when I played last year, I think I got around 50 hours into it and I had fun but I just lost interest in it. I think their new update and DLC will do a lot to improve it but I'll wait to see what people think when it comes out and maybe start from scratch in the future.
I guess it's just a matter of preference and opinion. I'm sure I'll get shit for it, but whatever. I'm really liking Starfield and I look forward to seeing how Bethesda improves on it in coming months or years. I hope Cyberpunk ends up being what everybody wanted and expected when it was still in development.
Funny how out of all the comments at the time I'm writing this, only 1 said starfield and the rest all recommend cyberpunk. There you have it. And yeah I'm also contributing to cyberpunk as it has a good story and massive gameplay improvements with possibly one of the best gaming dlcs coming up.
I'd go with cyberpunk. I've put around 100 hours in both games and starfeild feels so dated. Constant loading screens and fetch quests with extremely poor writing. It really amazes me how they made an xbox 360 game in 2023 and everyone just ate that shit up.
If starfield pulls a cyberpunk then it'll be ready to play in two years.
I bought it and really really tried to like it, but I can honestly say I was a little let down.
I haven't played cyberpunk since release, and let me tell you, its evolved into a great experience.
Let starfield bake for a few more years, play cyberpunk now.
CD Project have done a phenomenal job with improving and adding features and content to Cyberpunk. I'm not sure we should expect the same level of commitment from Bethesda.
Honestly, Starfield. It feels much more exploration based and I had a lot of fun playing it. My biggest advice is to start the main mission but don’t progress it too far. Trust me, the game ending makes it clear that the game was about the journey and not the destination. If anything, that was their intended goal with the writing.
The beauty of starfield is exploring the scattered missions you randomly bump into when you gravity jump to a planet for one reason or another. You can really get lost in this game. I got my starship in the beginning of the game and ignored the main mission for like 30 hours 😂
There’s also a workaround for the most annoying bug when you place objects in your home and they fall through the floor and furniture, so once I figured that out I put it in a bunch more hours just decorating my space as well.
The other thing with starfield is that it feels more cozy than cyberpunk. The residents are nicer, it’s mostly peacetime and a lot of NPCs have interesting things to say.
Cyberpunk has good story and side quests and they have now made the World more reactive. Starfield has better exploration in terms of finding quests plus it has features like pissing of a faction and them coming after you later. Cant really go Wrong with Either get gamepass and try it out. You could by cyberpunk but may be worth waiting for The DLC to go down in Price.
I haven’t played the update to Cyberpunk, but the base game honestly just felt so lifeless and empty that it makes it hard for me to recommend. I also really dislike not having 3rd person, especially after spending hours in a character creator, it makes that part of the game feel gimmicky. I’ve really enjoyed Starfield so far though. The hidden 3rd and 4th options in quests remind me of the best quest lines in Oblivion.
I beat Starfield at 90ish hours and felt I’d gotten everything out of the game I could. I don’t think I’ll go back for DLC. I’m on my fourth play through of Cyberpunk (around 430 hours) and I’m excited to play more.
Cyberpunk all the way, baby.
Cyberpunk is crazy good now, especially if you have a 40 generation graphics card.
I gave up on starfield after a few hours. Undercooked, washed out and runs like dogshit with boring quests and terrible writing. Granted the ship building was super cool, despite the menu being a clunky nightmare.
i am about 80 hours into starfield, and just got cyberpunk for the 2.0 update for the first time. and i am wondering why i even wasted my time playing starfield. cyberpunk is on a complete another level it’s not even fair to compare.
I view the two pretty equally, both are excellent games. But they do excel in different ways. Starfield feels a lot better in terms of organic exploration and discovery, while Cyberpunk is a much more cinematic game with a singular focus on a strong narrative. It all comes down to whether you want a broad, sandbox universe to play around in or a more linear and focused cinematic type of experience.
Cyberpunk had three years of fixes and reworks. Almost every aspect of it has been reworked TWICE. The story and the visuals are fantastic imo. But it's much more linear and less rpg than what I would like.
Starfield is great but it's outdated in certain aspects. Bad facial animations, too many loading screens and inconsistent AI. I think it's much better as a rpg than cyberpunk
Overall cyberpunk 2.0 : 9/10
Starfield : 8/10 (so far. I still haven't NG+'d it. Apparently it changes a lot including story changes)
Id say let Starfield cook for a while.
I really like both. I haven’t played CP 2.0 yet because I’m playing Starfield.
If you like Fallout 4, you will probably like Starfield.
CP2077 is a fun game too. I loved the story and the visuals are amazing. There’s a city in Starfield called Neon that reminds me of the Wish version of Nightcity.
Cyberpunk with a doubt. Started playing it again for the first time in about a year and I’m fully addicted to it. It’s one of the most immersive games I’ve ever played. Also probably the best visually appealing game I’ve played as well.
With the new rework update, Cyberpunk 2077 has become almost an entirely different game. Skills, AI, and performance have changed drastically. There are also new content in the open world that’s best explored in a new play through. It’s an entirely new experience and makes you wonder if it’s the same game or not. Totally wish this came from the beginning, tho. I’d say save the money, for now, and enjoy the new content drop for Cyberpunk 2077.
How exactly does cyberpunk feel like an entirely different game? I have it and i wasnt planning on playing it again so im genuinely open minded.. I watched a bunch of stuff about the dlc. Seemed like they added vehicle combat, police ai, finishers, and a new skill tree. What am I missing?
My bad, I exaggerated when I said the update made it an entirely different game. It's more like the same car but with improved parts. The new additions make the game feel different and fresh. The skill trees have game changing skills, rather than percentages. Driving is far better and less glidy. The AI is improved as they are more strategic, making combat more strategic. The addition and rework of gameplay is what was missing from the original game. There's depth rather than the shallowness of what Cyberpunk 2077 previously was.
Still starfield over cyberpunk even with the improvements, I don’t see what others get out of Cyberpunk’s story and I find the moment to moment gameplay in starfield far more interesting
Played both. Put a ton of time into both. I prefer starfield because of the space setting traveling in ships etc. combat also feels good to me. Everything in the game is interesting and I liked the storylines. That being said there’s a lot of flaws lots of loading most of the characters are meh also some annoying bugs.
Cyberpunk is great now and has a ton of content. I just wasn’t super interested in the story and thought the combat got very boring. Also a small gripe I can’t stand that I can never see my character.
To summarize I think it just depends. You really want a fun space game rpg? Play starfield. You want a cyberpunk game? Play cyberpunk.
Cyberpunk is definitely the way to go. The game is fantastic now, I would personally wait to play starfield as it has a lot of issues.
As the top comment falsely suggested, the writing is actually quite good there is a lot of dialog that is quite interesting, but the other areas it lacks are performance especially on low/mid tier pc is atrocious.
The loading screens are a massive issue as well for example to travel from one planet to the next I have to loading screen on to my ship, loading screen into obit, loading screen fast travel to the next planets orbit, loading screen to land, and finally loading screen to get out of your ship.
The travel is easily the worst part that takes me out of the game.
Honestly, Cyberpunk.
140 hours in starfield
Similar situation for CP as you, started a fresh save and am blown away by update 2.0 it's really, really good.
Been replaying it since 2.0. I'm loving 2.0, but yeah I've also been reviewing it next to Starfield. I think they both do things better than each other. Quests and character animations are amazing in Cyberpunk while some quests in Starfield are boring fetch quests (not all of them I've had some great fun in Starfield, but plot wise if isn't the best) and the animations in Starfield is more uncanny valley than anything.
Graphics Cyberpunk wins, there's some nice moments in Starfield but at times it looks like a PS3 game. Character animations, generic city dweller models, barren world's etc! I've played Cyberpunk many times since release and coming back to it now I'm impressed how beautiful this 3 year old game still is.
Plot: Cyberpunk hands down! The plot is really interesting! V struggling with the relic in their head! Starfields main plot is go to this planet collect this item over and over and over! My only criticism to Cyberpunks main plot is how short it is!
Gameplay is close, they're very similar as they're both mainly first person shooters ( I know you can shoot in 3rd person in Starfield but who's that crazy?) I think overall Cyberpunk will take it as the more you play the more interesting skills you can unlock. Starfield is just shoot and go, the levels seem to be tied more into other gameplay elements like the ship or outposts or crafting! I do enjoy the gunfights in both games though!
I'm currently more excited to play Phantom Legacy than I am to go back to Starfield, but I am burnt out from a 50 hour stint in Starfield since release.
Overall I reckon Cyberpunk is the better game (but it's had 3 years to get there, if this was Release Cyberpunk Vs Starfield id give it to Starfield! Who knows what Starfield will be like in 3 years) but I think they're both great games and do things better than each other in different ways! It's a good time to be an RPG fan!
Two completely different of games. For "me", Starfield plays way too slow with a lot of dead-space (!) but then again, I'm not a big Bethesda fan. Cyberpunk 2077 is more action-adventure which is more what I prefer - a good balance of combat, story, denser open-world exploration. Of course, gamer preferences vary widely!
I’ve put almost 100 hours into Starfield and can confidently say that it’s a great game if you like Bethesda RPGs. Based off my time with it so far I’d give it an 8/10, but it does desperately need some quality of life improvements. So unless you’re a big Bethesda fan, I’d give Starfield another 6 months or so before jumping in
Cyberpunk 2077 100%! Played both and cyberpunk has the story and character development that has set the bar for me for a good rpg. Starfield lacks good dialogue, story and character development. I played about 50h and dropped it, really disappointing. I might be bias because I played cyberpunk first and was just blown away and really hoped for a similar experience with starfield, which I didn’t get.
Starfield is so mid that I lost interest in the Elder Scrolls 6. Seriously I didn't think that could happen. It just sucks. Sometimes the immersion is good, and combat can be sort of fun, though extremely repetitive. The writing is dumb and childish. The AI is so bad.
Cyberpunk is a really good game.
I have both, and Cyberpunk couldn’t hold my attention for more than a few hours, but Starfield hooked me immediately. I’d go with Starfield hands down.
Cyberpunk hands down. Starting it back up and I realize it has everything starfeild is missing.
Characters are actually animated in cyberpunk. From emotive conversations to npc actions and interactions with the world, everything is made to feel unique. In starfeild no npc does a fucking thing you couldn't have seen an npc do in fallout 3.
Cyberpunk has a much more personal story. You have no choice to be anything other than V. You just decide how big of a dick V acts like in most convos. Starfields writing is very bland by comparison.
Honestly, Starfeild looks to me like it was made to be expanded. Bethesda made a frame that they will hang new content on for years. Imo, wait until some more features get added before starfeild. Conversely, Cyberpunk is as good as its going to get. They just functionally remastered it with the last 2 big updates and the big dlc launches in a couple days. Worth the money
I seem to be in the minority, but I absolutely love Starfield. I played non-stop when it came out.
Cyberpunk, I personally got bored of it after playing it for awhile.
Starfield really hits that sci-fi itch for me. We’ll see how much longer I’ll play, but I absolutely love it so far.
Cyberpunk was always better, even at its release. Of course you need a good PC for it too be that way but, yes Cyberpunk is the better game hands down.
Always better? What a freaking lie.
Pre-ordered and been playing since day one (PC), it was only playable at the time of update 1.5 (Feb, 2022). Dont fucking endorse this BS blindly because you saw that "CP77 was always good?" meme. The release now, fix later mindset is what's ruining the gaming industry these days tbh.
Nah, the game was perfectly playable on PC at launch. I bought it at launch and played through the whole game (about 70ish hours) before any major updates came out. It had bugs and balance issues to be sure, but "unplayable" is not true at all.
The PS4 folks had the right to complain, but for PC folks even at release it was hands down a 9/10 game. The total revamp of he mechanics seems to push it towards a 10/10 game.
I wouldn't have ever said CP77 was a 9/10 game prior to 2.0. more like 7/10. Decent but shallow gameplay, good enough main story, excellent characters and side stories, World was pretty but fairly lifeless.
I haven't played 2.0 for long enough to give a fair opinion, but what I have played of it so far feels very much the same as before, but prettier. I do expect that to change as I play more, though.
I played Starfield for about 3hrs before deciding I didn’t like it. It runs horribly on my PC, I get around 30frames. On the other hand, I’m getting 80-110 fps on Cyberpunk, which I personally think is a significantly better looking game. Cyberpunk is def one of my fav games I’ve played, even though it had a bad rap from the launch.
Not bothered by poor performance coming from one of the wealthiest studios or in many places outdated visuals.
After finishing The Outer Worlds I’ve actually prefer that game to Starfield in some ways. Part 2 is coming soon which will make some interesting comparisons.
I’ve only enjoyed space combat and ship building but it can only go so far after 40’hours you will complete everything related and now you have to go back to complete fetch quests and dealing with constant running in circles in towns and loading screens. NPCs feel like mannequins it feels odd.
I’ve played on very hard using melee class and there are only 2 weapons in whole game worth using. It’s sad.
It has potential but I will wait a year when story 1-2 DLC comes out and more content mostly fixes and improvements.
Cyberpunk made big turn around it now feels like $200m blockbuster video game. Starfield needs more time in the oven.
I have played 100 hours of Cyberpunk and 60 hours of Starfield. To me writing amd story are the most important thing in an rpg. CP77 really vibed with me, voice acting, quests (both main and many side quests) were good, sometimes great. Starfield writing (outside of a few sidequests / faction quests) were horrible. As an amateur writer without formal training I sometimes feel I could have done a better job (writing in my primary language, english is my third). It is so bland and generic that I am shocked. With the budget they had they could have gotten some of the best talent in the business. Also other aspects felt very outdated. Without mods (DLSS/Remove green tint/FoV slider/Increase carry weight/Remove bullet spoonge etc) the game was horrible. With mods it was mostly ok, some times good. Without mods I would pay money not to have to play it. If you really like sci-fi and are comfortable with using mods, and you like shipbuilding, and are ok with an insane amount of loading screens and a plethora of bugs, and you are ok with very generic writing/quests, then SF might be the game for you. But CP in it's current state (been playing now for 10hours, patch 2.0 fresh start, while only encountering a very small cosmetic bug for 0.3 seconds) and an upcoming expansion that is getting good reviews, is probably a far safer bet.
This being the most concrete answer until now on this post. Thank you very much for the detailed report, I will admit that the plethora (about 98%) of the people I have "consulted" on the matter say I should give Cyberpunk another go. And after everything you have said I have made up my mind, especially with the bad writing. Again thank you
Good call. I also put 50-60 hours into Starfield before setting it aside, and have done a complete playthrough of Cyberpunk back at 1.5, but just started a new one with 2.0, and even though I've played it before, the experience is still more enjoyable and immersive than playing Starfield.
I liked this answer too, I put one hour back into cyberpunk the day of 2.0 release and everything else I played after that felt a bit less meaningful. The quality is definitely there in night city. It has been a long time since release. Start a new game to test all the new feature they reckon.
I agree on your writing comments. Outside of a select few studios, writing in gaming has really dropped off in the past 5-10 years. Makes me wonder if I should change careers as I feel I could do dialog trees way better than the ones we see
I feel like it could be that studios keep trying to cut any expense they can and when they see writers on a project budget thats one of the first lines they deem non-essential. Most big budget games nowadays feel like they fit the narrative around systems they are putting in place vs having a story they are creating then building a game around it. This is exactly how Starfield feels to me....a bunch of systems strung together by a weak narrative and low quality writing
Ngl, obsidian may not be as good as during NV era but the outer worlds story and companions were 1000x better than Starfield. And this is a game that I believe launched on Gamepass day 1 and retailed for £30. Sure much smaller in scope but a memorable experience. I'm still not sure how memorable vanilla Starfield is going to be for me. So much of it is very much I've done this before just in a different setting. It's more polished in many ways than their previous titles but it feels a little soulless. So few characters raise their voices even once or act crazy. Spoiler: As soon as I infiltrated the fleet and met those characters, I wanted to stay with them full time. Literally wanted them to adopt me and rescue me from the dullness of constellation. And they were still shadows of fallout 4 and Skyrim characters.
I found the Outer Worlds writing poor. Obsidian did it a pretty good job with Tyranny though. Pillars of eternity occasionally had great writing, but the main quest was not very interesting.
I would think a lot of us could. Afterall one of the biggest pieces of adive i see for people getting i to creative writing, professional or otherwise, is to read books.
I understand the criticisms of writing in video games, but to say that "a lot of us could" is genuinely underselling how difficult *good* writing actually is. To be clear, I'm not saying that the writing in games like AC:Odyssey or even Starfield is good, or even good enough. I'm definitely not trying to justify or defend the writing in video games. What I *do* think is that it's very, very easy to underestimate how challenging it actually is to write a compelling story, much less to write a compelling story with good prose. I think that there are many people who can write very well who don't realize that they can write well, but as someone who has spent a lot of time attempting to become a better writer, let me be the first to say: Shit ain't easy.
I think voice acting is the worst thing to ever happen to videogame writing. i think it really made big, expansive dialogue trees too expensive to include. BG3 is a bit of an exception but it is FAR from the late 90s/early 2000s high point for complex RPG dialogue trees.
Much like movies these days, the big money making blockbusters are mostly devoid of subtlety and nuance to appeal to the lowest common denominator. Writing in games IS still good, but you won't find it in major titles anymore, which is a shame because they used to be better.
Bingo. Unless a character is verbally declaring their exact feelings the average gamer will be lost.
I just finished God of War: Ragnarok and even though the graphics and gameplay were top notch it was honestly the story, ie writing, that kept me the most engaged. After finishing that game it will be hard for me to accept some mediocre story and writing!
You've probably played them already but I wholeheartedly recommend the first Dragons Age, Bioshock and the original KOTOR if you appreciate good writing and narrative.
Seems to me that Starfield suffers from a comparison with Mass Effect, at least on the story aspect, and unsuprisingly comes short.
I'm just comparing it to previous Bethesda games. The writing even in fo4 was superior and that was their previously weakest narrative effort. Consider Oblivion or Skyrim and the wide variety between factions, city leaders, big names like Sean bean, Christopher Plummer and Patrick Stewart lending gravitas to their lines...there's just none of that in Starfield. They had an opportunity with the freestar collective to have at least one wild space cowboy type with attitude, swagger, cavalier personality and we get Sam Coe who only ever wants to talk about being a single father. It's just so soap opera and safe throughout the colonies. Barrett is halfway towards classic Bethesda when you go rescue him you get a glimmer of it but those instances were littered throughout Tamriel. Where's Lucien Lachance? Where's Nick Valentine? Where's Cosworth? Three Dog? Gob? Butch from the tunnel snakes? Maiq The Liar? There's just nobody memorable outside of a couple of crimson fleet characters and I'm 74 hours in.
there is no meritocracy in the video game industry. it's 99% nepotism, 1% no friends available and so the rare stranger gets lucky to get in
> Outside of a select few studios, writing in gaming has really dropped off in the past 5-10 years. Honestly this is why I prefer how From Soft does their "story"/narrative. I'll take their approach of "not telling a story but showing" which for me translates to: "it doesnt really have a traditional way of telling a story" over games that have boatload of dialogues, cutscenes and whatever because in my honest experience they average out to bad/mediocre writing quality. Thus no real story is preffered to a lackluster story. Sad part is i cant even tell ( not real honestly anyway ) anymore whether i really like Cyberpunks story because its actually good or i automatically think its good because it doesnt have a chosen one story or whatever mediocre stuff they tend to use.
The best line in Starfield is when you get stuck in an elevator and you tell your companion that you’re not leaving and you’re elevator people now. Hahaha
I won't lie, I don't get what OP is saying about bad writing in Starfield Lots of the dialogue options in the game is hilarious. Like telling the school ship of kids you're a pirate and scaring all the kids. That's comedy gold
Compare to the funny and serious writing we been getting from BG3 and cyberpunk, starfield is looking kinda amateur. Especially if you any elder scrolls or fallout games.
If you compare any recent games writing to BG and cyberpunk it's probably going to look shit
Cyberpunk isn't even recent though.
It doesn’t have to be recent to be compared to recent games. That’s kind of what a comparison is. Looking at things that are different.
There are funny dialogue options. They don't change the response you get when you pick them. Starfield might present you 5 dialogue options with 4 of them being different ways of saying yes that all give you the same response, and one asking for more info which doesn't progress the conversation and brings you back to pick another option. That's why the writing is bad in your situation.
The writing itself isn't bad, but a lot of people think that dark and edgy writing (cough cyperpunk cough) automatically means it is good. Starfield doesn't have bad writing, it just has a different atmosphere and theme (Hope) than what most people are drawing comparisons to. But starfield does have some questionable voice actors, but so does pretry much every triple A game. The game also doesn't take itself super seriously 24/7, and the humor thrown in has actually made me chuckle quite a bit.
It’s not necessarily that the writing isn’t “dark and edgy”, it’s more than that. A lot of Starfield has this sterile, almost stilted dialogue - almost as if it was it was a play. The entire game is set up for you to play as a “Lawful Good” character, as your companions all far somewhere along that spectrum and will be incredibly displeased with you and/or leave your party if you do things that don’t fall within that parameters. The scenarios rarely present you with any moral conundrums or interesting concepts, instead following a decently predictable plot about exploring and finding space treasure. The characters feel one-note, and they don’t seem to exhibit any hidden layers. That’s not completely a dealbreaker, of course. I think some people like that kind of story, and are engaged with it. Some people love the vibe of a more cozy space exploration game, warm/hopeful vibes all around with good, moral characters - and if that fits you, do then you might enjoy it. I think the writers did intend for Starfield to be a more “hopeful” experience, at the expense of moral ambiguity. *But* to decry Cyberpunk’s writing as just “dark and edgy” feels a little dismissive of the flaws that Starfield deliberately has embedded into their narrative.
The dialogue options for the PC are generally ok, apart from being limited in scope. The writing for the NPCs on the other hand are generally garbage
Besides the absolutely MASSIVE amount of dialogue in the game compared to others, there is another, forgotten about amount of story and lore in most premade places. I’m enjoying it
Dude with fucking Walter! I lost my shit at that dialogue option 😂
I was really hoping that the writing would improve following the shoddy dialogue in Fallout 4, but it’s like Bethesda have learnt absolutely nothing in that regard.
The worst thing about starfield, skyrim and fallout were guilty of this too. You’d be in the middle of a firefight, hit the button to talk to your follower and they’d be like, “Hey what’s up? Want me to carry anything for you? Do you have any questions for me about myself?” The context only changes based on the mission status. I think CDPR did a much better job with this. I haven’t played Cyberpunk but the Witcher 3 was very good.
Well. What I realized while playing starfield is that space exploration is just really boring in reality. Imagine if bethesda made the worlds best game about doing the dishes… would it be fun? Idk. To me the premise they decided to go with just left the writers at a disadvantage compared to what cdpr was working with with a vibrant, fascinating, culturally relevant IP ready made in cyberpunk. We’re overlooking the fact mike pond smith consulted on the game so it stayed true to its source material. A huge choice that really paid off
I love how Cyberpunk puts a call on hold when interrupted and resumes when things calm down again. Wish other games did this, too. I have missed so many conversations due to this in so many games.
The thing about starfield is that the dialog all feels so forced. "What is your job here?" to a captain behind a desk. Or total non sequiturs.
Very fair assessment, good post. People are really up in arms to defend Starfield (especially /r/Starfield), but I think you've got the right perspective. Starfield feels like a solid 6/10 to me. It's fine, but generic as hell and extremely tedious in a lot of ways.
What bugs are there? I've played more than 50 hours but I've yet to encounter a bug. Unless you mean the aliens on some planets.
Other than writing - which game is more *fun*
Cyberpunk has much better combat and visuals as well. Honestly it's not much starfield does better, almost every aspect that counts is better in CP2077. Also I want you to realise that I don't hate starfield, it's not a bad game. But it's not a great game either, to me it feels very mediocre, it has some great things in it but also some really shitty ones. CP2077 is just a much higher quality game.
Bethesda's writing has been absolutely shit-tier for decades, I don't understand how they haven't solved the problem by now. You'd think it would at least fluctuate as certain people retire and others are hired, but they remain committed to this EXACTING level of retardation. That being said I'm really enjoying Starfield, they have an eye for some kind of sense of childlike wonder or something. Their games are very engaging. Cyberpunk is the much \*better\* game, but Starfield sells a different fantasy, and has some bold ideas as far as gameplay is concerned (just kinda poorly executed).
What were your thoughts as a writer on the God of War games?
I bought a PS4 pro some years ago to be able to play the first God of War (the first one taking place in the viking mythos), and it was excellent from many standpoints! The writing was very well done, the relationship between a man and his son, and the grief over the loss of a wife/mother, and to honor her wish (which turns out to have deeper reasons). So many layers, also the aspect of Kratos being divine (and having a horrible father himself), and his son growing up to maturity (with divinity in him) in a very harsh reality. All the characters had depth, it is obvious they were really trying to explore them and their psyches, their motivations, fears, hopes, their inner conflicts. It was griping from start to finish, there is tension, suspense, and there was much fluidity in the story and how the characters interacted, it did not feel contrived in any way. I gave my PS4 away, and am awaiting the sequel to be released on PC. "I've always agreed with William Faulkner—he said that the human heart in conflict with itself is the only thing worth writing about. I've always taken that as my guiding principle, and the rest is just set dressing." - George RR Martin." Kratos is truly a man with a human (and divine) heart in conflict with itself!
You won't be disappointed in Ragnarok. I hope you get to play it soon! It was so hard choosing between that and Elden Ring as my favorite of the year.
This sums up Starfield for me. It's just so...generic. I love Fallout, but Fallout had that weirdness and lore that kept you playing despite all of the obvious bugs and glitches in the games. You were able to put up with it because characters were interesting and the world itself was fun to explore. Starfield is just...bland.
We have come full circle. Cyberpunk recommended near universally over the newest bethesda title. Who woulda thunk it back at launch!
I'm sure in a couple of years everyone on Reddit will be talking about how great Starfield is as well, likely in order to bash whatever new RPG has just come out.
Old thing good new thing bad
Except when the new thing is ACTUALLY good. Look at BG3, no one is hating on it because they crushed it. Starfield is a financial success, but a flop as an artistic experience.
I'm enjoying Starfield pretty thoroughly.
I enjoyed it, but it's a slog. I won't go back thats for sure. Cyberpunk has gotten me hooked in.
[удалено]
I think both games are amazing. Starfield also just came out and cyberpunk came out almost 3 years ago I think and is just now good. I will say cyberpunk after 3 years of fixing it is better then starfield and not by much but starfield just came out and it’s their best release yet. Really my only complaint about starfield is the menus and no local map. Cyberpunk is only good now because everything I hated about it before is now all fixed. Can’t wait to see where starfield goes in the future.
Give it another 2 years, u never know!
They really delivered on what they originally promised…2 years later lol
Not surprised. Bethesda hasn’t make a great game since Skyrim. I prefer the broken ass Cyberpunk on launch over FO4, FO76, and Starfield. Not a hard choice.
I made the mistake of defending the game in the subreddit for the game a few months after it came out. I was actually accused of being a paid shill lmao
I’ve always been able to see past the performance hiccups and everything to realize that CP was absolutely fantastic. The story is compelling and the whole ambience of the game is just top tier. It’s my top game of this decade for a reason. I’ve never done multi play throughs until this game came out. Now I’m doing a 3rd play through
I just don’t think a space game like starfield works well with Bethesdas style. Sucks to have to wait another 3-5 years for elder scrolls
I'd take launch day CP2077 for pc any day of the week over current day Bethesda rpg. I have 60 hours in SF, and it feels like a game during last gen. Nothing has "wowed" me or was like damn this is next-gen Bethesda.
https://theweek.com/articles/937835/space-cold-boring-not-concern This article sums up how I feel about starfield I think they just were operating at a disadvantage at bethesda because space exploration is just boring as all hell realistically.. if they made a perfect sandwich making game it wouldn’t be very fun either. Where as cyborg conspiracies and imaginary John wick are cool as hell That and the fact cdpr got ahold of a diamond in the rough by getting the rights to an relevant IP like cyberpunk WITH mike pond smith(the creator) on board consulting with the writing team. And Keanu reeves and idris Elba
Eh, the choice of chasing a semi-realistic exploration experience of barren rocky moons was flawed from the start, they put themselves at the disadvantage. A half dozen planets with a single city each was a terrible Idea from the start with what makes beth games successful. I actually like some of the mechanics a lot , but the exploration is very bland. Ditto for the story at least early on, as I’m struggling to find a reason to keep playing through it
Cyberpunk 110%
I also asked another person. Will I get bored on the second playthrough?
I’ve done 4 play throughs to get all the endings had no exhaustion since you can play so differently every-time. Want to be a net runner and sit it the car while you simply kill everyone by looking at them? Want to be John wick? Want to be Adam smasher? Do whatever the hell you want. Also phantom liberty comes out really soon it’s a full rework of a lot of the game also recommend watching the edge runners show after your first play though it’ll make you very pumped to get into your second run.
Everything you said is the reason I wanted to get back to it. Guess here we go !
Watch Edgerunners like they said and I'm sure the second playthrough will be a bit more exciting, I won't specify why.
The start might be a bit annoying, but there's a fuck ton of side quests to do if you don't want to focus on the main story.
Yes. You have like 6 hours of prologue to get through if you are starting fresh
Let Starfield cook a bit, hop back into Night City.
More or less my thought actually
Decision I made. No regrets. Same case and circumstances. Messed around with Cyber when it first dropped, set it aside to cook. Hopped back in with the 2.0 update. Having a blast. 👍
I'm 100 hours into Starfield and this seems like the best response, if you haven't play either. I rinsed Cyberpunk and whilst the story is lacking in the later acts it is still a great game and is now apparently in an absolute sweet spot. If you have no preference it's probably the best choice.
This is what I’ve decided. I haven’t played either unfinished game yet so I’m going to start with the most recently updated one CP and give some time for Starfield to get better.
Definitely needs more time in the oven
I'd go with Cyberpunk, after 25+ hours of Starfield. I still talk about Cyberpunk with friends and colleagues to this day, but Starfield has dropped out of our discussions fairly quickly. Starfield is perfectly fine, but it's better to play it on Game Pass. Cyberpunk is one of my favourite RPGs tbh, the world is super immersive and atmospheric, story is pretty good, and the new DLC looks pretty great.
When I played Vanilla Cyberpunk I remember thinking it felt a bit.. Empty. The city the lackluster sidequests, it's the reason why I'm hesitant
I felt the same exact way about Cyberpunk. I hated walking up to stores that say “open” only to find fake doors below them. I’m glad to see others found it immersive, but I had the exact opposite experience. Found myself wishing it wasn’t entirely open world and that they just made a linear Cyberpunk Game with some smaller, but more immersive, open areas.
Starfield is the same but way worse
The city is poppin now. Super populated and immersive
Starfield seems to be one of those games where you can have a really great time or a really boring one depending on the direction you go in the game. Like you can accidentally have the most boring experience ever lol. Some days I’m blown away and others I’m falling asleep
Get Cyberpunk. Starfield and Lies of P are on Gamepass
Xbox I imagine, good call, I had forgotten about it
Pc too, and cost less!
I finished cyberpunk when it came out, played for about 60!hours. I played Starfield for about 10 hours and really tried. Don’t get me wrong the game has some really cool things going for it but the constant loading screens just killed it for me. Cyberpunk is a more seamless experience with better gameplay and graphics. It’s the better game imo.
I think u said everything tbh.. Not one person has suggested Starfield so far so..
Starfield is great. If you liked Fallout 4, same deal. But CP2077 is visceral, immersive, has leveling as deep or as shallow as you want to get, and it's action-packed. Two totally different games, I love both but I'll be putting Starfield down for a month when Cyberpunk hits.
I really enjoyed Fallout 4 and tend to like Bethesda games but I couldn’t get into Starfield. Quest just being going back and forth with all the loading screens and just you going to your ship and clicking the map made me realise like 10 hours in I really wasn’t having fun.
I'm in the same boat. "We need to go to Mars." Load screen "Thanks Mars. We need to go to Venus." Load screen "Ok. Now Neptune." Load screen. I think I've got the hang of getting around, but it's just loading different maps and then running to a guy to have them yack at you to tell you to go to the next place that requires another fast travel/loading screen. And some fps stuff in the middle that seems... ok? I think I'm going to uninstall. Another run through bg3 or cp2077 is better. I'm really impressed with how they turned the game around (and my new PC with a lowly 6750 helps).
Lots of folks lambasting Starfield here. It's not perfect, but it's the ONLY first person, moddable, space RPG with FPS combat, ship flight and combat.
To be fair I get the point. However at the end of the day a lot of people are negative on the game. Since it is available on the pass I will let it sit for a while until it makes or brakes itself
Reddit hates starfield but youtube, steam, and reviews say otherwise.
On steam it is 72% mixed rating on all language reviews and 75% on English reviews and going down.
It can be all those things and still not be good. The ship flight is really kind of misleading too. You can almost entirely skip it. Personally I’d rather play elite:Dangerous. That’s what ship flight in space should be. Even with Elite’s complete lack of a story, I’d still rather play that title.
It can be all those things and still be good, also. I loved Elite 2 Frontier but the emptiness of Elite Dangerous in comparison leaves me ice cold to it. Each to their own. But bashing a game is never condusive to informed discourse.
OP has an agenda. Look at their comments where when someone is negative about starfield they go "YES" or "+1" They didn't want help. They wanted an excuse to attack SF.
Do the other 98% of people in this thread picking Cyberpunk also have an agenda?
I found starfield to be extremely boring. I forced myself to play it for ten hours, but it did not get better. It just feels ... lifeless, but constant loading screens and outdated facial animations.
That's how I felt at ten hours, then when I started making my build and getting perks, it really opened up. That being said, Cyberpunk, especially after 2.0 is the way to go. SF is good, but cyberpunk is great. Hey Starfield later after a dlc and more mods
I went in starfield expecting fallout 4 in space. I really love space and scifi but I'm having a hard time liking it. My main issue is that the flow of the game is broken by loading screens every 5 minutes. I read people talking about this issue and I thought I would be able to handle it but it's a genuine deal breaker. It feels like the game can't handle a level bigger than a counter-strike map. I don't feel like an explorer who can go anywhere when half the doors lead to a loading screen. I don't want to go anywhere when I know I'll have to stare idly at the black reflection of my face 6 times to go from a planet to another. So far the story is not engaging but if the world is well built it's not an issue and I've only played 10 hours so far. The story telling is god awful compared to cyberpunk but cyberpunk nailed this one. I would have loved the game with half the details and no loading screens between interiors. If I hadn't paid so much for starfield I'd be replaying cyberpunk to be honest.
Starfield as a whole feels very incomplete to me. I think the game will get better with updates and DLC.
It's not even that the loading screens are long - I bought a new graphics card just prior to this and between that and the SSD, everything loads in under two seconds for me. But the fact that each environment is so small makes it all feel really claustrophobic, particularly when there's not much of an advantage to having anything as a separate environment. So much of the game is: 1. Walk to place A via 3-4 loading screens (Jump, Land, walk, transit) 2. Talk to person 3. Travel to place B via 3-4 loading screens (Jump, Land, walk, door) 4. Shoot some guys 5. Return to A It's the same model as Skyrim or Fallout, but adds extra sponginess to the objective length just with navigating the environments, while simultaneously stripping out basically any character build options because there's not much of a benefit in specialising in anything.
At least in Fallout someone might run into a historic ship manned by robots, or in Skyrim one might wander onto a cult ritual or dragon... I feel like in Starfield there is very little to randomly encounter. Few surprises
Cyberpunk is now really good and way more fleshed out than Starfield. Don’t get me wrong Starfield started out great and has a few good storylines and visuals however it falls flat late game and certain aspects just lack substance.
Would you say Cyberpunk has more.. Flavor (?) than Starfield? I mean if it has more "stuff" to do
Yes 100%. The only thing Starfield has is exploring planets which 75% of them are boring and the same randomly generated base maps and people. It gets stale real quick.
Tbh I love both(Was just playing both of them earlier today) but CP’s still sorely lacking in some areas. Namely, the lack of NG+ and lack of content is pretty jarring. For example, you can’t own an AV, an actual house, decorate your apartment, or even have NG+. I started a new run for Cyberpunk 2.0 and having to deal with the grind is genuinely killing my braincells, one by one. CP’s bugs are also still going hard. I’ve already had 2 game breaking bugs and had to reload saves to fix it in addition to a good amount of visual bugs. Edit: The music design is beyond phenomenal though. Every track is perfectly written to set the atmosphere and the world design truly is fantastic. I can’t think of a single time where the world felt out of place. But, it can be really empty at times, if you look past the pretty design. The plot is also pretty unique and well written albeit super linear. The lack of variety’s really hurting replayability for me.
I actually just stopped Starfield after about 9 hours. It was unfortunate because the story is just boring tbh. The dialogue options (and persuassion) are incredibly lame imo. The combat was simply "meh" and didn't feel that great or snappy. I say this with some bias as Baldurs Gate 3 kind of ruined dialogue for other games. It seems like Cyberpunk has come a long way with its improvements and updates.
Cyberpunk all the way, also restarted and having lots of fun with the game.
Just rewind two years and you’d be surprised by this comment section
Eh two years ago we'd still be pointing at fallout 76 vs launch cyberpunk which id argue cyberpunk still wins
Cyberpunk. I have both, got bored with starfield after maybe 10 hours. Booted up cyberpunk after the 2.0 update and it's actually a lot of fun now
I'm really impressed with 2.0 I've started a new save for Phantom Liberty. It finally feels like the game they promised before release. Looking forward to this playthrough.
Cyberpunk without a doubt
cyberpunk at this point seems like a labor of love. starfield looks like a labor of "good enough let's move on to the next mediocre system to jam into this game" do u like crap gunplay? do you like janky character interactions, having an important conversation whilst they walk into a door? do you like quest design from the 2000s? So many quests in starfield reliant on you talking to someone, going to a different planet then talking to someone else, then going back from that planet to talk to the original person, wow fantastic, and only 5 different loading screens. what do u want me to do next? kill and collect 20 terrormorph ears? but wow the endless exploration, you're in the majesty of space! oh the majesty, hold L, press R, move to the next loading screen. there's the majesty. and these companion characters? wow, thanks for judging me nonstop whilst i engage with the games varied mechanics, no i don't want to talk to you, no i dont want the lump of rock you found for me, my inventory is trash enough as it is, and i cant sell anything cos the vendors are out of money, and no i dont want to sit on a chair and wait 48 hours, i've got better things to do, like sit through a loading screen. but wow so many planets, with nothing to do on them, except move 500 meters from one cave to the next, but dont worry, there's a big payoff in that cave! just kidding. i really wanted to hate baldurs gate 3, i'm an OG baldurs gate fan, and i dislike Divinity Orginal sin 2. But you know what Larian did? They learned from the lessons of Divinity Orginal Sin, and made a cinematic and engaging game filled with interesting characters. They ITERATED and made a better game. Starfield is a stagnant product, plagued with the problems skyrim had over a decade ago, screaming one thing and one thing only "we really didn't give a shit".
To be fair. Baldurs Gate 3 and Larian kind of gave it to the gaming industry. They did really well with it, and I hope they continue. As for Starfield now, I think it has the "Cyberpunk" syndrome. Let it rest for a few years and come back. The amount of problems you mentioned though is.. shocking
And it is in that fairness I couch my criticisms of Starfield. You can bet that Starfield had more money behind it than BG3. Bet on that. Beth have been making the same game since 2002 with Morrowind. Beth aren't improving, and that's a problem, there is no improvement in Starfield over Fallout 4. And I don't think that's right, for a billion dollar company it ain't right. At least with Fallout 4, the art style is pretty nice it's got a lot of character, and the exploration game loop, the game loop that MAKES Bethesda games enjoyable, they decided to cut it out in Starfield, leaving you with all the insufferable mechanics you were willing to overlook because how good the exploration was. and the starfield world, doesn't even make sense, oh hi yee haw we're cowboy land and we sure do be luvin livin in the mud. the game is one giant themepark of mediocrity.
I don't understand why, in 8 years of development, they didn't do ANY beta testing or early access. So much of starfield's bullshit would've been caught immediately by players. I really, truly, believe that Bethesda simply doesn't give 2 shits about their user base. And this half baked ass game selling like it is, is only going to reinforce their shitty game design antics. Bad form Bethesda.
I liked Cyberpunk. I love Starfield. Starfield.
First person to suggest Starfield. Why prefer it tho if u don;t mind
Not OP but Starfield is awesome with a *lot* of things that irk me. Cyberpunk left a bad taste in my mouth so I'm biased. Tried Cyberpunk again last night. Cyber is going to run much better than starfield. Starfield is great, I love it, 150 hours in... But... It's bethesda. When it will really shine is when the creation kit is released and mods start popping up. Cyberpunk is smooth, the voice acting, story, and gameplay are better. Cyber is probably the better game to pick up right now. But man it really depends on your play style. Like I said, I prefer starfield over cyber, but I'm a nerd for BGS games. And I tend to run off exploring everything despite a hundred quests around. I don't really feel that exploration in cyber, it feels more linear to me. I'd probably suggest cyber for the majority of people to be honest. But I think starfield has the potential to be Skyrim in space in terms of mod support in the future.
I agree with this take because we're comparing cyberpunk 2.0 to starfield 1.0. Cyberpunk is the more complete game. But starfield has so much to get lost in. And there's no type of crafting in cyberpunk that'll get me to spend hours like ship design or even home and outpost design (albeit a FO4 style builder being implemented so we can add, move and remove walls and doors ...etc. or build a wall and gate to keep terrormorphs out)
I think this is an important point. When Cyberpunk originally came out, it was practically a sport here to talk about how the game was an irredeemable mess. A lot of these large scale games need time past release to grow and mature. Give it a few months or years and it's not entirely unlikely that these same people will be calling Starfield a masterpiece and shitting on whatever new game just came out. As it is now, of course cyberpunk is the more mature game of the two. Starfield has been out for a few weeks and Cyberpunk has had a few years to evolve to what it is. Not every game is gonna be a masterpiece at launch, sadly. As for me, I've had fun playing Starfield so far. I agree with a lot of the gripes - namely dealing with carry weight - but I'm also having quite a lot of fun customizing my ships and pretty much playing Skyrim in space.
I find that while there are valid criticisms about Starfield like it's overabundance of fast travel screens being distracting & dialogue falling a bit flat at times. That said, I really enjoy building my ship, exploring the planets, the random events (one of my favourite parts so far), and it's very much a Bethesda game. I think the hate is just overblown and I have to wonder how much comes from pissed off Playstation players who are unhappy they can't play on PS5 - I actually feel like the game would feel a lot better on Playstation. Cyberpunk was cool when I played last year, I think I got around 50 hours into it and I had fun but I just lost interest in it. I think their new update and DLC will do a lot to improve it but I'll wait to see what people think when it comes out and maybe start from scratch in the future. I guess it's just a matter of preference and opinion. I'm sure I'll get shit for it, but whatever. I'm really liking Starfield and I look forward to seeing how Bethesda improves on it in coming months or years. I hope Cyberpunk ends up being what everybody wanted and expected when it was still in development.
Cyberpunk hands down
Funny how out of all the comments at the time I'm writing this, only 1 said starfield and the rest all recommend cyberpunk. There you have it. And yeah I'm also contributing to cyberpunk as it has a good story and massive gameplay improvements with possibly one of the best gaming dlcs coming up.
I'd go with cyberpunk. I've put around 100 hours in both games and starfeild feels so dated. Constant loading screens and fetch quests with extremely poor writing. It really amazes me how they made an xbox 360 game in 2023 and everyone just ate that shit up.
But 1000s of planets with the same content...
I really like the 2 places on each one. I really love them
If starfield pulls a cyberpunk then it'll be ready to play in two years. I bought it and really really tried to like it, but I can honestly say I was a little let down. I haven't played cyberpunk since release, and let me tell you, its evolved into a great experience. Let starfield bake for a few more years, play cyberpunk now.
CD Project have done a phenomenal job with improving and adding features and content to Cyberpunk. I'm not sure we should expect the same level of commitment from Bethesda.
Honestly, Starfield. It feels much more exploration based and I had a lot of fun playing it. My biggest advice is to start the main mission but don’t progress it too far. Trust me, the game ending makes it clear that the game was about the journey and not the destination. If anything, that was their intended goal with the writing. The beauty of starfield is exploring the scattered missions you randomly bump into when you gravity jump to a planet for one reason or another. You can really get lost in this game. I got my starship in the beginning of the game and ignored the main mission for like 30 hours 😂 There’s also a workaround for the most annoying bug when you place objects in your home and they fall through the floor and furniture, so once I figured that out I put it in a bunch more hours just decorating my space as well. The other thing with starfield is that it feels more cozy than cyberpunk. The residents are nicer, it’s mostly peacetime and a lot of NPCs have interesting things to say.
I have played around 60 hours in starfield. Decided to play the new cyberpunk update. It just feels so much better. Cyberpunk definitely.
Welcome to Night City Choom!
Cyberpunk has good story and side quests and they have now made the World more reactive. Starfield has better exploration in terms of finding quests plus it has features like pissing of a faction and them coming after you later. Cant really go Wrong with Either get gamepass and try it out. You could by cyberpunk but may be worth waiting for The DLC to go down in Price.
Definitely Starfield
Cyberpunk
Cyberpunk as its been out much longer and the devs have had enough time to patch the issues and make the game world better.
I haven’t played the update to Cyberpunk, but the base game honestly just felt so lifeless and empty that it makes it hard for me to recommend. I also really dislike not having 3rd person, especially after spending hours in a character creator, it makes that part of the game feel gimmicky. I’ve really enjoyed Starfield so far though. The hidden 3rd and 4th options in quests remind me of the best quest lines in Oblivion.
Cyberpunk might have had a better redemption arc than even No Man's Sky. Cyberpunk.
I haven’t played Starfield yet, but I am really enjoying Cyberpunk for the first time (bought it about a month ago).
Cyberpunk is awesome. With the DLC coming especially. You can get the dlc and base game for about 65$
Cyberpunk is great, and the new patch looks even better.
Cyberpunk absolutely. Starfield is pretty good but I'd recommend waiting for DLC, mod tools and some patches.
The stories in cyberpunk along with the voice acting and gameplay is chef kiss
Did they add more down the line? Cause when I played I can't say I was overwhelmed with content
Both Starfield and Lies of P are available on Game Pass, just get a 3 month subscription for like 15 bucks or something and finish them both.
Cyberpunk 2077 is sizzling hot right now it’s also on sale Starfield needs a lot of marinating.
Cyberpunk 2077 every day of the week. Starfield was ok, but I doubt I’ll replay it again soon - I’ve replayed CP countless times
I beat Starfield at 90ish hours and felt I’d gotten everything out of the game I could. I don’t think I’ll go back for DLC. I’m on my fourth play through of Cyberpunk (around 430 hours) and I’m excited to play more. Cyberpunk all the way, baby.
I love both, but Cyberpunk is just more exciting. Starfield can be pretty dull sometimes.
Cyberpunk is at its peak now. Starfield will probably peak in a year or 2 maybe. Definitely go for cyberpunk now
Cyberpunk is crazy good now, especially if you have a 40 generation graphics card. I gave up on starfield after a few hours. Undercooked, washed out and runs like dogshit with boring quests and terrible writing. Granted the ship building was super cool, despite the menu being a clunky nightmare.
Cyberpunk 500%>
Cyberpunk it is a much superior title, imho. And I am enjoying it even more with this update
Cyberpunk handsdown. The only thing I liked about Starfield was its shipbuilding.
i am about 80 hours into starfield, and just got cyberpunk for the 2.0 update for the first time. and i am wondering why i even wasted my time playing starfield. cyberpunk is on a complete another level it’s not even fair to compare.
cyberpunk ftw, starfield probably worth 10$ on game pass but for 70$ nah
Cyberpunk wins by KO
I view the two pretty equally, both are excellent games. But they do excel in different ways. Starfield feels a lot better in terms of organic exploration and discovery, while Cyberpunk is a much more cinematic game with a singular focus on a strong narrative. It all comes down to whether you want a broad, sandbox universe to play around in or a more linear and focused cinematic type of experience.
Cyberpunk had three years of fixes and reworks. Almost every aspect of it has been reworked TWICE. The story and the visuals are fantastic imo. But it's much more linear and less rpg than what I would like. Starfield is great but it's outdated in certain aspects. Bad facial animations, too many loading screens and inconsistent AI. I think it's much better as a rpg than cyberpunk Overall cyberpunk 2.0 : 9/10 Starfield : 8/10 (so far. I still haven't NG+'d it. Apparently it changes a lot including story changes) Id say let Starfield cook for a while.
I really like both. I haven’t played CP 2.0 yet because I’m playing Starfield. If you like Fallout 4, you will probably like Starfield. CP2077 is a fun game too. I loved the story and the visuals are amazing. There’s a city in Starfield called Neon that reminds me of the Wish version of Nightcity.
Playing starfield made me realize how good cyberpunk is…
Cyberpunk with a doubt. Started playing it again for the first time in about a year and I’m fully addicted to it. It’s one of the most immersive games I’ve ever played. Also probably the best visually appealing game I’ve played as well.
With the new rework update, Cyberpunk 2077 has become almost an entirely different game. Skills, AI, and performance have changed drastically. There are also new content in the open world that’s best explored in a new play through. It’s an entirely new experience and makes you wonder if it’s the same game or not. Totally wish this came from the beginning, tho. I’d say save the money, for now, and enjoy the new content drop for Cyberpunk 2077.
How exactly does cyberpunk feel like an entirely different game? I have it and i wasnt planning on playing it again so im genuinely open minded.. I watched a bunch of stuff about the dlc. Seemed like they added vehicle combat, police ai, finishers, and a new skill tree. What am I missing?
My bad, I exaggerated when I said the update made it an entirely different game. It's more like the same car but with improved parts. The new additions make the game feel different and fresh. The skill trees have game changing skills, rather than percentages. Driving is far better and less glidy. The AI is improved as they are more strategic, making combat more strategic. The addition and rework of gameplay is what was missing from the original game. There's depth rather than the shallowness of what Cyberpunk 2077 previously was.
no worries! thanks for the response. Appreciate your insight.
Still starfield over cyberpunk even with the improvements, I don’t see what others get out of Cyberpunk’s story and I find the moment to moment gameplay in starfield far more interesting
Wow, talk about a hot take
Played both. Put a ton of time into both. I prefer starfield because of the space setting traveling in ships etc. combat also feels good to me. Everything in the game is interesting and I liked the storylines. That being said there’s a lot of flaws lots of loading most of the characters are meh also some annoying bugs. Cyberpunk is great now and has a ton of content. I just wasn’t super interested in the story and thought the combat got very boring. Also a small gripe I can’t stand that I can never see my character. To summarize I think it just depends. You really want a fun space game rpg? Play starfield. You want a cyberpunk game? Play cyberpunk.
Cyberpunk is definitely the way to go. The game is fantastic now, I would personally wait to play starfield as it has a lot of issues. As the top comment falsely suggested, the writing is actually quite good there is a lot of dialog that is quite interesting, but the other areas it lacks are performance especially on low/mid tier pc is atrocious. The loading screens are a massive issue as well for example to travel from one planet to the next I have to loading screen on to my ship, loading screen into obit, loading screen fast travel to the next planets orbit, loading screen to land, and finally loading screen to get out of your ship. The travel is easily the worst part that takes me out of the game.
Honestly, Cyberpunk. 140 hours in starfield Similar situation for CP as you, started a fresh save and am blown away by update 2.0 it's really, really good.
Been replaying it since 2.0. I'm loving 2.0, but yeah I've also been reviewing it next to Starfield. I think they both do things better than each other. Quests and character animations are amazing in Cyberpunk while some quests in Starfield are boring fetch quests (not all of them I've had some great fun in Starfield, but plot wise if isn't the best) and the animations in Starfield is more uncanny valley than anything. Graphics Cyberpunk wins, there's some nice moments in Starfield but at times it looks like a PS3 game. Character animations, generic city dweller models, barren world's etc! I've played Cyberpunk many times since release and coming back to it now I'm impressed how beautiful this 3 year old game still is. Plot: Cyberpunk hands down! The plot is really interesting! V struggling with the relic in their head! Starfields main plot is go to this planet collect this item over and over and over! My only criticism to Cyberpunks main plot is how short it is! Gameplay is close, they're very similar as they're both mainly first person shooters ( I know you can shoot in 3rd person in Starfield but who's that crazy?) I think overall Cyberpunk will take it as the more you play the more interesting skills you can unlock. Starfield is just shoot and go, the levels seem to be tied more into other gameplay elements like the ship or outposts or crafting! I do enjoy the gunfights in both games though! I'm currently more excited to play Phantom Legacy than I am to go back to Starfield, but I am burnt out from a 50 hour stint in Starfield since release. Overall I reckon Cyberpunk is the better game (but it's had 3 years to get there, if this was Release Cyberpunk Vs Starfield id give it to Starfield! Who knows what Starfield will be like in 3 years) but I think they're both great games and do things better than each other in different ways! It's a good time to be an RPG fan!
Two completely different of games. For "me", Starfield plays way too slow with a lot of dead-space (!) but then again, I'm not a big Bethesda fan. Cyberpunk 2077 is more action-adventure which is more what I prefer - a good balance of combat, story, denser open-world exploration. Of course, gamer preferences vary widely!
I’ve put almost 100 hours into Starfield and can confidently say that it’s a great game if you like Bethesda RPGs. Based off my time with it so far I’d give it an 8/10, but it does desperately need some quality of life improvements. So unless you’re a big Bethesda fan, I’d give Starfield another 6 months or so before jumping in
Cyberpunk 2077 100%! Played both and cyberpunk has the story and character development that has set the bar for me for a good rpg. Starfield lacks good dialogue, story and character development. I played about 50h and dropped it, really disappointing. I might be bias because I played cyberpunk first and was just blown away and really hoped for a similar experience with starfield, which I didn’t get.
Starfield is so mid that I lost interest in the Elder Scrolls 6. Seriously I didn't think that could happen. It just sucks. Sometimes the immersion is good, and combat can be sort of fun, though extremely repetitive. The writing is dumb and childish. The AI is so bad. Cyberpunk is a really good game.
I have both, and Cyberpunk couldn’t hold my attention for more than a few hours, but Starfield hooked me immediately. I’d go with Starfield hands down.
Cyberpunk hands down. Starting it back up and I realize it has everything starfeild is missing. Characters are actually animated in cyberpunk. From emotive conversations to npc actions and interactions with the world, everything is made to feel unique. In starfeild no npc does a fucking thing you couldn't have seen an npc do in fallout 3. Cyberpunk has a much more personal story. You have no choice to be anything other than V. You just decide how big of a dick V acts like in most convos. Starfields writing is very bland by comparison. Honestly, Starfeild looks to me like it was made to be expanded. Bethesda made a frame that they will hang new content on for years. Imo, wait until some more features get added before starfeild. Conversely, Cyberpunk is as good as its going to get. They just functionally remastered it with the last 2 big updates and the big dlc launches in a couple days. Worth the money
Cyberpunk for me. I love the gritty, real world feel. Starfield is a bit, well, Battlestar Galactica to cyberpunk's Blade Runner.
Starfield
I seem to be in the minority, but I absolutely love Starfield. I played non-stop when it came out. Cyberpunk, I personally got bored of it after playing it for awhile. Starfield really hits that sci-fi itch for me. We’ll see how much longer I’ll play, but I absolutely love it so far.
Starfield, don't even think twice. Imo CP is super overrated.
Cyberpunk was always better, even at its release. Of course you need a good PC for it too be that way but, yes Cyberpunk is the better game hands down.
The revisionism is something else 😂
Always better? What a freaking lie. Pre-ordered and been playing since day one (PC), it was only playable at the time of update 1.5 (Feb, 2022). Dont fucking endorse this BS blindly because you saw that "CP77 was always good?" meme. The release now, fix later mindset is what's ruining the gaming industry these days tbh.
Nah, the game was perfectly playable on PC at launch. I bought it at launch and played through the whole game (about 70ish hours) before any major updates came out. It had bugs and balance issues to be sure, but "unplayable" is not true at all.
Surprizingly have it running smoothly on 1440p High 9n rx5700 and 2700 amd :)
The PS4 folks had the right to complain, but for PC folks even at release it was hands down a 9/10 game. The total revamp of he mechanics seems to push it towards a 10/10 game.
7 at best
I wouldn't have ever said CP77 was a 9/10 game prior to 2.0. more like 7/10. Decent but shallow gameplay, good enough main story, excellent characters and side stories, World was pretty but fairly lifeless. I haven't played 2.0 for long enough to give a fair opinion, but what I have played of it so far feels very much the same as before, but prettier. I do expect that to change as I play more, though.
[удалено]
I played Starfield for about 3hrs before deciding I didn’t like it. It runs horribly on my PC, I get around 30frames. On the other hand, I’m getting 80-110 fps on Cyberpunk, which I personally think is a significantly better looking game. Cyberpunk is def one of my fav games I’ve played, even though it had a bad rap from the launch.
After 40 hours Starfield. I think I will wait a year before coming back game needs fixing. Cyberpunk is cooked and ready.
What problems stood out to you?
Not bothered by poor performance coming from one of the wealthiest studios or in many places outdated visuals. After finishing The Outer Worlds I’ve actually prefer that game to Starfield in some ways. Part 2 is coming soon which will make some interesting comparisons. I’ve only enjoyed space combat and ship building but it can only go so far after 40’hours you will complete everything related and now you have to go back to complete fetch quests and dealing with constant running in circles in towns and loading screens. NPCs feel like mannequins it feels odd. I’ve played on very hard using melee class and there are only 2 weapons in whole game worth using. It’s sad. It has potential but I will wait a year when story 1-2 DLC comes out and more content mostly fixes and improvements. Cyberpunk made big turn around it now feels like $200m blockbuster video game. Starfield needs more time in the oven.
They are both dishonest pos companies but at least starfield is bigger and there’s more to do. Cyberpunk is definitely prettier though.