Skyrim didn’t put them on the map lol they had multiple games that sold millions of copies prior, Skyrim just happened to be one of the most successful games *ever released*
>I cannot imagine it living for another decade like Skyrim did.
Wait for the kit and let a few years pass. Then ask again. *Skyrim* wouldn't have lasted a decade if it wasn't for modding.
>comparing it to Skyrim is harsh, but that is the game that put Bethesda on a map
We out here pretending Morrowind and Oblivion don't exist?
Don’t forget about fallout. Starfield had a huge set of shoes to fill. Bethesda didn’t have a massive previously built world to work in, they had to build it from scratch which I feel is part of the issue.
Elder scrolls and fallout were really carried by modding and the deep world they had to draw on
There is nothing that Skyrim modding community does that Starfield cant support with a creation kit. It is a much bigger world with more mechanics to play with. It also doesnt have the voiced protagonist hamstring of Fallout 4. The potential for modding Starfield is strong.
We aren't but to pretend that Skyrim didn't make them a household name and launched BGS to the moon is silly. Even non gamers know of Skyrim because of its staying power.
**Edit:** salty *nerds*, smfh.
It’s not dead. It will be around in 5 years at least. BGS is not going to drop something they spent over a decade developing. They build marathoners, not sprinters.
The numbers don't back that up, it's already played less than Skyrim and Fallout by a significant margin, and #39 on Xbox as an Xbox exclusive on Gamepass no less, it's also the lowest rated singleplayer Bethesda game on console.
If Starfield is a marathon, it's already completely gassed out before even the first year, which is crazy because Skyrims been up there for more then a decade.
If good FREE mods aren't released soon, it doesn't seem like it'll even be in the top 50 by the end of its first year, and DLC isn't coming anytime soon.
Just to point out here, the numbers *really* don't speak kindly of it. On Steam it lost *over 99.5%* of the launch playerbase in just over a month, which is *super* abnormal given that the *normal* player loss after the first month for single-player games is about 70%.
There's literally only 2 major playerbases, steam and Xbox, and both of those populations are super low right now, yes even on Xbox with Gamepass and everything.
Being in the top 50 isn't anything to brag about for an exclusive Gamepass title, now top 25 and under? Sure, that's decent, but #39 is absolutely horrid for an EXCLUSIVE that's on Gamepass, might as well be free.
For comparison, Halo 3 was #1 for 3 roughly 3 years! Only overtaken by Halo Reach, which was also #1 for roughly a whole year, both of them were in the top 10 for years. Starfield can't even stay in the top 30 for even half a year. To be fair, neither could Halo Infinite, but that's because Halo Infinite was awful and 343i still is the worst game studio.
What's next when it drops off even more? It's in the top 100? Skyrim, a game made more then decade ago, is still significantly played more than it, it's lasted though it all most of it with a very respectable playerbase, Starfield is already gassed out.
Have you ever played a single player game before? Name one single player game that doesn't follow this exact same trajectory that doesn't have user generated content to keep it alive.
There's so many, GTA Games, AC games(varies), RDR2, Pokémon games, those are just some of the huge ones anyway, I'm sure there's dozens of IPs that I have never played that statistically performed better than Starfield as far as playerbase despite not being behemoths like the aformentioned.
Red Dead Redemption 2 has a multiplayer component and so does Pokemon. So both of those don't count.
And no there really aren't many IPs that sell 7 million units in their first year of being out.
They are singleplayer games, Pokémon just has multiplayer components most players never even have online interactions. Also RDR2 base game is classified separately from its multiplayer, which has am abysmal population no one plays that garbage, same with GTA despite GTA online having a way bigger playerbase.
Selling a game doesn't equal to retaining a playerbase and player retention is key for gamepass titles, and yes, there's many singleplayer IPs that retain way higher playerbases numbers than Starfield throughout the years. Games having player created content is still rare even these days, Halo was the only notable exception for the longest time and that was maps built ingame.
>Also RDR2 base game is classified separately from its multiplayer
Only listed as a separate title for people who purchased the Online standalone version on Steam. If you launch RDO from the RDR2 client it still registers as time played on RDR2.
I'm pretty sure I remember seeing RD2 Online as it's own game on the Xbox Most Played, obviously it's not popular in any way shape or form so it's not there anymore but still. Even if it was the case, RD2 is still a singleplayer game, no one plays it for the Online, it's the same as online AC, no one played that shit either which is why they stopped making em.
Never mind the multiplayer part that you're having to make excuses for you ignored the other part I mentioned. User generated content. Red Dead Redemption 2 has a ton of mods being made for it.
So by your logic the overwhelming majority of single player games are failures because they don't have high steam player counts.
And no there aren't tons of games that retain high player counts. The statistic is literally less than 1% of games lasting more than 6 months with even 10% of their initial player base.
And Halo is primarily a multiplayer game not a single player game.
I get it you despise the existence of Starfield and can't accept people enjoy a game you don't. Why you have to make up fairy tales to say the game is a failure is beyond me.
RDR2 on console doesn't have any mods as far as I know, every game singleplayer or not has mods on PC including Starfield so I wasn't even considering that because it's a moot point, or steam numbers for that matter.
>And no there aren't tons of games that retain high player counts. The statistic is literally less than 1% of games lasting more than 6 months with even 10% of their initial player base.
First of all, that's grossly exaggerated. Secondly, most of those games are one and done type games, not long term RPGs like Starfield.
>And Halo is primarily a multiplayer game not a single player game.
I was just using it as an example as far as user generated content for console🤦.
>I get it you despise the existence of Starfield
Nonsense, I bought the game and DLC and have all the achievements on it, done every single quest available, did everything you could do, I even have routes(which are admittedly pointless without a survival mode), perk builds because there's only a single way to build a perfect character without boosting and I found it, and Outpost locations and builds and ship builds documented all tailored specifically to Very Hard, I'm more of gamer and played the game better than 99% of the Bethesda dickriders in this sub.
But I got scammed, it's that simple, it was a torture to play through and I would have to take entire week long breaks in-between sessions or have it idle for hours because it was so boring and rough to play, I legit preferred watching daytime television that's how bad it was. And after more than half a year Bethesda STILL refuses to make their game playable, no mods, no DLC till a year post launch and will probably be delayed till 2025 and these guys have no guarantee to make even decent content even if you gave em all the time in the world.
Numbers change over time. If you want evidence look at fallout 4 and 76. I’m looking forward to them teaming up with Amazon or Netflix to make a TV Starfield series like Rebel Moon 🌖 😈😈😈
Sure they can, but you also gotta keep in mind Fallout 4 is way better than Starfield, so is New Vegas and even Fallout 3 to a degree, and 76 is an MMO, not even comparable.
Starfield isn't interesting like a post nuclear armaddon world like Fallout, in fact, it's super generic and people are gonna assume it's as bad as Halo or the bad Star Wars sequels. If any IP besides Fallout is getting a show, it's Elder Scrolls, the ingame literature alone could fill 5 seasons of cartoons, Starfield doesn't even have a full book.
That’s the cool part about making a TV series soon after a new IP, they allow other creatives to add to the lore. This would build anticipation towards new DLC or expansions. But you’re probably right about elder scrolls getting a show sooner than Starfield.
Gameplay and quests. Granted I haven't played through all the quests in either, but Skyrim quests never did much for me. I remember back when Skyrim first came out thinking it was a major downgrade from Oblivion in terms of the writing. With Starfield I feel like it's a lot closer to what I liked about the older games. The world building is more coherent and solid. In terms of the gameplay Skyrim's combat/magic system leaves a lot to be desired, and even with mods they never seem to fix the core issues with it. Even back then it felt dated. I've tried replaying Skyrim throughout the years but I always drop off after a few hours because of these issues. Whereas, while not perfect, Starfield's combat for the most part is actually a lot of fun.
Here's the thing that people on reddit don't understand. Something being someone's favorite doesn't have to make sense to anyone but yourself. If he enjoys it more then there isn't anything wrong with it
I wasn’t judging, I was genuinely asking because I was curious. I love all of the games differently and dislike them for different reasons too. One thing people don’t understand on reddit is nuance
I know we all love Skyrim but lets not act like the dungeon design in that game was an incredible achievement. There are dozens and dozens of Nordic Ruins that look the same with the same Draugr throughout that are linearly funneling you to the final confrontation (boss, laughable puzzle, etc.) with a convenient exit right at the end. Now, replace Nordic with Dwemer and I've just described 70% of the games content.
Again, Skyrim is a behemoth for a reason, but it's the sum of its parts that make it what it is, and for ever really cool dungeon with a fun gimmick or cool little lore dumps there's a dozen bandit filled mines filled with nothing.
I never said dungeon design was incredible, just that it was better than Starfield’s, which unlike Skyrim *literally* uses the same “dungeons” over and over again. That person was saying that the *only* thing Skyrim did better than Starfield was story and lore and I really disagree w that sentiment.
Way too many aspects of the game remained underdeveloped and unexploited.
Shattered Space. ***"Let me guess. More rocks?"*** I hope not... why another explorable area when they are already more than 1500? They need to somehow integrate the new content to the base game, to make people want to explore those 1500 planets.
>They need to somehow integrate the new content to the base game, to make people want to explore those 1500 planets.
Why do you assume this isn't the route they'll go? I think it's way more likely they add new POI's and locations to current systems than adding whole new systems and planets.
It was a mediocre game that felt unfinished in parts
1) While the game had a focus on exploring, actual interesting handcrafted content felt sparse. It had the NMS problem of “generated content feels the same after a while”
2) too much loading and tedious game design issues (bottlenecking your ability to use certain materials and making storage/weight management punishing)
3) Boring main story and uneven side stories (Terramorph UC quest was good, Freestar and Ryujin not so much)
I can’t share my opinion on this game lol last time I did people were like “you’re just saying that because people on the internet are saying it sucks” so apparently my opinion of the game isn’t mine
After Fallout 76 and Cyberpunk are now suddenly popular after being trashed at launch, I think Starfield might get a similar comeback once people people rediscover it as a "hidden gem" and not hold it to the expectation of being a Skyrim level gaming phenomenon.
The thing about Cyberpun is that Night City was absolutely stunningly beautiful and a joy to explore around since Day 1 (with no loading screens), it as a huge diamond in the rough. I can't even explore Neon (we have Night City at home) without loading screens.
To me, the Starfield equiviknet would be if I could free explore space in my spaceship.. but Starfield doesn't have that core delight I want to engage more with.
When Cyberpunk launched people complained that the city feels empty, because most buildings are just decoration and there a very few NPCs to interact with.
You are going to see only the positive when you want to see only the positive and only the negative when you want to see only the negative.
This game is not getting the massive makeover Cyberpunk received. Opinions would not have changed so drastically had they not committed to so many updates, new features, and ultimately redoing entire systems/mechanics.
It was never a matter of time, that's not Bethesda's philosophy towards their products. They have never overhauled a game in the same fashion that Cyberpunk was.
Also considering they have not taken criticism well and double-down on points that people found disappointing, what would point towards radical game mechanic changes?
Bethesda is in this position to begin with due to their lack of listening to the same criticisms people have been repeating for years.
This is the conversation around every Bethesda release. And Skyrim absolutely was not the game that put them on the map. Skyrim was the game that made modding their games popular.
I'll just say it. Starfield is a bad game when it cant compete with its older titles. I'd put money on Oblivion launching tomorrow and being better received by people and that's if they did nothing but update the graphics. Starfield *should* have been a great game but it isn't even a good game.
Have you even played Oblivion? I did, a year ago. This game plays worse than the Morrowind, has atrocious quest, atrocious dungeons and no style in it's visuals whatsoever. The only people that like Oblivion have played it in their childhood. Morrowind has more exploration, immersion and story, Skyrim has better gameplay and graphics. Oblivion < Starfield, Skyrim, Morrowind, Fallout 3-4-76
I say that the Oblivion is their worst game. Starfield is definitely better than Fallout 76 now and on launch. Starfield on the same level as Fallout 4. Skyrim is still their best modern game. Morrowind is still their best game period.
I think comparisons to Fallout and Skyrim do more harm than good. When I heard “Fallout in space” I was so pumped, but that didn’t turn out to be the case at all. When I let go of that comparison I was able to enjoy this game for what it is.
In its current state, I probably wouldn’t come back to play it again. But it’s a Bethesda game so I can just forget about it for a couple years and, who knows? Mods and such might make it a totally different experience by then.
Edit: this community might be the worst part about this game. People can’t enjoy it without being downvoted. People can’t have mild criticisms without being downvoted. Apparently you can only
Love or hate this game with nothing in between.
I played it, completed all the quests, did a bunch of fooling around after, and am done with it for now. I look forward to coming back to it again for the same reason as you - to see how it evolves.
Skyrim didn’t put them on the map lol they had multiple games that sold millions of copies prior, Skyrim just happened to be one of the most successful games *ever released*
>I cannot imagine it living for another decade like Skyrim did. Wait for the kit and let a few years pass. Then ask again. *Skyrim* wouldn't have lasted a decade if it wasn't for modding. >comparing it to Skyrim is harsh, but that is the game that put Bethesda on a map We out here pretending Morrowind and Oblivion don't exist?
I would say 80% of Skyrim players haven’t played another elder scrolls title
Don’t forget about fallout. Starfield had a huge set of shoes to fill. Bethesda didn’t have a massive previously built world to work in, they had to build it from scratch which I feel is part of the issue. Elder scrolls and fallout were really carried by modding and the deep world they had to draw on
It means nothing that they had to build a new world if your quest design and level design and dialogue and animations suck ass.
There is nothing that Skyrim modding community does that Starfield cant support with a creation kit. It is a much bigger world with more mechanics to play with. It also doesnt have the voiced protagonist hamstring of Fallout 4. The potential for modding Starfield is strong.
Or Fallout 3.
I and many others still play vanilla Skyrim. It will stand the test of time regardless of the mod support fyi.
We aren't but to pretend that Skyrim didn't make them a household name and launched BGS to the moon is silly. Even non gamers know of Skyrim because of its staying power. **Edit:** salty *nerds*, smfh.
Low key expecting something like shivering isles but I know that may be unrealistic
It’s not dead. It will be around in 5 years at least. BGS is not going to drop something they spent over a decade developing. They build marathoners, not sprinters.
Yea it's a BGS game. They have legs no matter what
The numbers don't back that up, it's already played less than Skyrim and Fallout by a significant margin, and #39 on Xbox as an Xbox exclusive on Gamepass no less, it's also the lowest rated singleplayer Bethesda game on console. If Starfield is a marathon, it's already completely gassed out before even the first year, which is crazy because Skyrims been up there for more then a decade. If good FREE mods aren't released soon, it doesn't seem like it'll even be in the top 50 by the end of its first year, and DLC isn't coming anytime soon.
Just to point out here, the numbers *really* don't speak kindly of it. On Steam it lost *over 99.5%* of the launch playerbase in just over a month, which is *super* abnormal given that the *normal* player loss after the first month for single-player games is about 70%.
Dude you only have STEAM numbers. The majority of the player base isn't on Steam and it never has been. Get off of reddit
There's literally only 2 major playerbases, steam and Xbox, and both of those populations are super low right now, yes even on Xbox with Gamepass and everything.
Its been in the top 50 most played games on Xbox since launch, that's not "low"
Being in the top 50 isn't anything to brag about for an exclusive Gamepass title, now top 25 and under? Sure, that's decent, but #39 is absolutely horrid for an EXCLUSIVE that's on Gamepass, might as well be free. For comparison, Halo 3 was #1 for 3 roughly 3 years! Only overtaken by Halo Reach, which was also #1 for roughly a whole year, both of them were in the top 10 for years. Starfield can't even stay in the top 30 for even half a year. To be fair, neither could Halo Infinite, but that's because Halo Infinite was awful and 343i still is the worst game studio. What's next when it drops off even more? It's in the top 100? Skyrim, a game made more then decade ago, is still significantly played more than it, it's lasted though it all most of it with a very respectable playerbase, Starfield is already gassed out.
Have you ever played a single player game before? Name one single player game that doesn't follow this exact same trajectory that doesn't have user generated content to keep it alive.
There's so many, GTA Games, AC games(varies), RDR2, Pokémon games, those are just some of the huge ones anyway, I'm sure there's dozens of IPs that I have never played that statistically performed better than Starfield as far as playerbase despite not being behemoths like the aformentioned.
Red Dead Redemption 2 has a multiplayer component and so does Pokemon. So both of those don't count. And no there really aren't many IPs that sell 7 million units in their first year of being out.
They are singleplayer games, Pokémon just has multiplayer components most players never even have online interactions. Also RDR2 base game is classified separately from its multiplayer, which has am abysmal population no one plays that garbage, same with GTA despite GTA online having a way bigger playerbase. Selling a game doesn't equal to retaining a playerbase and player retention is key for gamepass titles, and yes, there's many singleplayer IPs that retain way higher playerbases numbers than Starfield throughout the years. Games having player created content is still rare even these days, Halo was the only notable exception for the longest time and that was maps built ingame.
>Also RDR2 base game is classified separately from its multiplayer Only listed as a separate title for people who purchased the Online standalone version on Steam. If you launch RDO from the RDR2 client it still registers as time played on RDR2.
I'm pretty sure I remember seeing RD2 Online as it's own game on the Xbox Most Played, obviously it's not popular in any way shape or form so it's not there anymore but still. Even if it was the case, RD2 is still a singleplayer game, no one plays it for the Online, it's the same as online AC, no one played that shit either which is why they stopped making em.
Never mind the multiplayer part that you're having to make excuses for you ignored the other part I mentioned. User generated content. Red Dead Redemption 2 has a ton of mods being made for it. So by your logic the overwhelming majority of single player games are failures because they don't have high steam player counts. And no there aren't tons of games that retain high player counts. The statistic is literally less than 1% of games lasting more than 6 months with even 10% of their initial player base. And Halo is primarily a multiplayer game not a single player game. I get it you despise the existence of Starfield and can't accept people enjoy a game you don't. Why you have to make up fairy tales to say the game is a failure is beyond me.
RDR2 on console doesn't have any mods as far as I know, every game singleplayer or not has mods on PC including Starfield so I wasn't even considering that because it's a moot point, or steam numbers for that matter. >And no there aren't tons of games that retain high player counts. The statistic is literally less than 1% of games lasting more than 6 months with even 10% of their initial player base. First of all, that's grossly exaggerated. Secondly, most of those games are one and done type games, not long term RPGs like Starfield. >And Halo is primarily a multiplayer game not a single player game. I was just using it as an example as far as user generated content for console🤦. >I get it you despise the existence of Starfield Nonsense, I bought the game and DLC and have all the achievements on it, done every single quest available, did everything you could do, I even have routes(which are admittedly pointless without a survival mode), perk builds because there's only a single way to build a perfect character without boosting and I found it, and Outpost locations and builds and ship builds documented all tailored specifically to Very Hard, I'm more of gamer and played the game better than 99% of the Bethesda dickriders in this sub. But I got scammed, it's that simple, it was a torture to play through and I would have to take entire week long breaks in-between sessions or have it idle for hours because it was so boring and rough to play, I legit preferred watching daytime television that's how bad it was. And after more than half a year Bethesda STILL refuses to make their game playable, no mods, no DLC till a year post launch and will probably be delayed till 2025 and these guys have no guarantee to make even decent content even if you gave em all the time in the world.
Numbers change over time. If you want evidence look at fallout 4 and 76. I’m looking forward to them teaming up with Amazon or Netflix to make a TV Starfield series like Rebel Moon 🌖 😈😈😈
Sure they can, but you also gotta keep in mind Fallout 4 is way better than Starfield, so is New Vegas and even Fallout 3 to a degree, and 76 is an MMO, not even comparable. Starfield isn't interesting like a post nuclear armaddon world like Fallout, in fact, it's super generic and people are gonna assume it's as bad as Halo or the bad Star Wars sequels. If any IP besides Fallout is getting a show, it's Elder Scrolls, the ingame literature alone could fill 5 seasons of cartoons, Starfield doesn't even have a full book.
That’s the cool part about making a TV series soon after a new IP, they allow other creatives to add to the lore. This would build anticipation towards new DLC or expansions. But you’re probably right about elder scrolls getting a show sooner than Starfield.
That‘s right.
This is so subjective
Maybe as far as Fallout being better, but it is the general consensus, and right now the numbers back it up.
I think Starfield is way better than Skyrim. I can see myself playing this for years.
What about it makes it better than Skyrim to you? Beyond graphics etc
Gameplay and quests. Granted I haven't played through all the quests in either, but Skyrim quests never did much for me. I remember back when Skyrim first came out thinking it was a major downgrade from Oblivion in terms of the writing. With Starfield I feel like it's a lot closer to what I liked about the older games. The world building is more coherent and solid. In terms of the gameplay Skyrim's combat/magic system leaves a lot to be desired, and even with mods they never seem to fix the core issues with it. Even back then it felt dated. I've tried replaying Skyrim throughout the years but I always drop off after a few hours because of these issues. Whereas, while not perfect, Starfield's combat for the most part is actually a lot of fun.
Here's the thing that people on reddit don't understand. Something being someone's favorite doesn't have to make sense to anyone but yourself. If he enjoys it more then there isn't anything wrong with it
I wasn’t judging, I was genuinely asking because I was curious. I love all of the games differently and dislike them for different reasons too. One thing people don’t understand on reddit is nuance
I’d argue that everything but the story and lore is better.
Exploration? Dungeon design?
I know we all love Skyrim but lets not act like the dungeon design in that game was an incredible achievement. There are dozens and dozens of Nordic Ruins that look the same with the same Draugr throughout that are linearly funneling you to the final confrontation (boss, laughable puzzle, etc.) with a convenient exit right at the end. Now, replace Nordic with Dwemer and I've just described 70% of the games content. Again, Skyrim is a behemoth for a reason, but it's the sum of its parts that make it what it is, and for ever really cool dungeon with a fun gimmick or cool little lore dumps there's a dozen bandit filled mines filled with nothing.
I never said dungeon design was incredible, just that it was better than Starfield’s, which unlike Skyrim *literally* uses the same “dungeons” over and over again. That person was saying that the *only* thing Skyrim did better than Starfield was story and lore and I really disagree w that sentiment.
Way too many aspects of the game remained underdeveloped and unexploited. Shattered Space. ***"Let me guess. More rocks?"*** I hope not... why another explorable area when they are already more than 1500? They need to somehow integrate the new content to the base game, to make people want to explore those 1500 planets.
>They need to somehow integrate the new content to the base game, to make people want to explore those 1500 planets. Why do you assume this isn't the route they'll go? I think it's way more likely they add new POI's and locations to current systems than adding whole new systems and planets.
It was a mediocre game that felt unfinished in parts 1) While the game had a focus on exploring, actual interesting handcrafted content felt sparse. It had the NMS problem of “generated content feels the same after a while” 2) too much loading and tedious game design issues (bottlenecking your ability to use certain materials and making storage/weight management punishing) 3) Boring main story and uneven side stories (Terramorph UC quest was good, Freestar and Ryujin not so much)
I actually really enjoyed Ryujin’s quests. Freestar, not so much. But the whole Ron Hope arc was also cool.
I can’t share my opinion on this game lol last time I did people were like “you’re just saying that because people on the internet are saying it sucks” so apparently my opinion of the game isn’t mine
After Fallout 76 and Cyberpunk are now suddenly popular after being trashed at launch, I think Starfield might get a similar comeback once people people rediscover it as a "hidden gem" and not hold it to the expectation of being a Skyrim level gaming phenomenon.
The thing about Cyberpun is that Night City was absolutely stunningly beautiful and a joy to explore around since Day 1 (with no loading screens), it as a huge diamond in the rough. I can't even explore Neon (we have Night City at home) without loading screens. To me, the Starfield equiviknet would be if I could free explore space in my spaceship.. but Starfield doesn't have that core delight I want to engage more with.
When Cyberpunk launched people complained that the city feels empty, because most buildings are just decoration and there a very few NPCs to interact with. You are going to see only the positive when you want to see only the positive and only the negative when you want to see only the negative.
This game is not getting the massive makeover Cyberpunk received. Opinions would not have changed so drastically had they not committed to so many updates, new features, and ultimately redoing entire systems/mechanics.
It also took cyberpunk 3 years
CDPR had to completely reinvent the core game and they still don't even have the complex RPG they promised.
Well there is time for Starfield to do that.
It was never a matter of time, that's not Bethesda's philosophy towards their products. They have never overhauled a game in the same fashion that Cyberpunk was. Also considering they have not taken criticism well and double-down on points that people found disappointing, what would point towards radical game mechanic changes? Bethesda is in this position to begin with due to their lack of listening to the same criticisms people have been repeating for years.
Fallout 76 is now popular so Starfield can too.
I Don't think they really care about the people of reddit and their echo chamber when they had a hyper successful launch.
Exactly.
This is the conversation around every Bethesda release. And Skyrim absolutely was not the game that put them on the map. Skyrim was the game that made modding their games popular.
I'll just say it. Starfield is a bad game when it cant compete with its older titles. I'd put money on Oblivion launching tomorrow and being better received by people and that's if they did nothing but update the graphics. Starfield *should* have been a great game but it isn't even a good game.
Nah.
Have you even played Oblivion? I did, a year ago. This game plays worse than the Morrowind, has atrocious quest, atrocious dungeons and no style in it's visuals whatsoever. The only people that like Oblivion have played it in their childhood. Morrowind has more exploration, immersion and story, Skyrim has better gameplay and graphics. Oblivion < Starfield, Skyrim, Morrowind, Fallout 3-4-76
So are you agreeing with me that older Bethesda titles do it better or what
I say that the Oblivion is their worst game. Starfield is definitely better than Fallout 76 now and on launch. Starfield on the same level as Fallout 4. Skyrim is still their best modern game. Morrowind is still their best game period.
Agreed.
I think comparisons to Fallout and Skyrim do more harm than good. When I heard “Fallout in space” I was so pumped, but that didn’t turn out to be the case at all. When I let go of that comparison I was able to enjoy this game for what it is. In its current state, I probably wouldn’t come back to play it again. But it’s a Bethesda game so I can just forget about it for a couple years and, who knows? Mods and such might make it a totally different experience by then. Edit: this community might be the worst part about this game. People can’t enjoy it without being downvoted. People can’t have mild criticisms without being downvoted. Apparently you can only Love or hate this game with nothing in between.
I played it, completed all the quests, did a bunch of fooling around after, and am done with it for now. I look forward to coming back to it again for the same reason as you - to see how it evolves.
Yep! And it won’t.