Starfield

[polonyc2]

seems like the game is improving with each new patch...lots of graphical improvements with the latest one...might be worth playing in another 6 months

 

[peppergomez]

seems like the game is improving with each new patch...lots of graphical improvements with the latest one...might be worth playing in another 6 months years

 

[Bigbacon]

seems like the game is improving with each new patch...lots of graphical improvements with the latest one...might be worth playing in another 6 months

THe patches dont fix that its boring as hell with nothing that stands out

 

[TaintedSquirrel]

THe patches dont fix that its boring as hell with nothing that stands out

6 months worth of patches = DLSS, FoV slider, and improved lighting. The rest are bugfixes.
Game's biggest issues are a ton of QoL type stuff which Bethesda hasn't touched.

 

[Dan_D]

6 months worth of patches = DLSS, FoV slider, and improved lighting. The rest are bugfixes.
Game's biggest issues are a ton of QoL type stuff which Bethesda hasn't touched.

Despite being one of Bethesda's smoothest launches, it's still a shit show as far as bugs go. Things like shitty menus and other things that the modding community fixes for each Bethesda game shouldn't be issues anymore. If Bethesda gave a damn about putting out a quality product, they'd look at some of what the modding community does and start doing things better rather than continually making the same design mistakes with each game they made over the last decade and a half.

 

[peppergomez]

Despite being one of Bethesda's smoothest launches, it's still a shit show as far as bugs go. Things like shitty menus and other things that the modding community fixes for each Bethesda game shouldn't be issues anymore. If Bethesda gave a damn about putting out a quality product, they'd look at some of what the modding community does and start doing things better rather than continually making the same design mistakes with each game they made over the last decade and a half.

In order for that to happen gamers would actually need to develop standards with regard to their purchases and exercise a little critical thinking when the hype machine swings into gear. Gamers are so easily fooled so why should any game company alter their formula (not matter how lazy or mediocre it may be) when it continues to earn them lots of money? Todd is laughing all the way to the bank.

 

[Dan_D]

In order for that to happen gamers would actually need to develop standards with regard to their purchases and exercise a little critical thinking when the hype machine swings into gear. Gamers are so easily fooled so why should any game company alter their formula (not matter how lazy or mediocre it may be) when it continues to earn them lots of money? Todd is laughing all the way to the bank.

I think people are starting to catch on to the fact that Bethesda's formula is extremely stale. People are looking at Cyberpunk 2077 and Balder's Gate 3 and even games that came out not too long ago and they are seeing what's possible in an RPG and it shows just how archaic Bethesda's designs and gameplay mechanics are. Starfield made a bunch of money, but if Bethesda doesn't change their thinking I think things are looking pretty bad for Elder Scrolls 6 or whatever the hell number they are on now.

 

[UnknownSouljer]

I think people are starting to catch on to the fact that Bethesda's formula is extremely stale. People are looking at Cyberpunk 2077 and Balder's Gate 3 and even games that came out not too long ago and they are seeing what's possible in an RPG and it shows just how archaic Bethesda's designs and gameplay mechanics are.

It's been a "hot take" except with the minority of gamers that actually want to play cohesive games: but Bethesda hasn't really produced a good game ever as far as I can tell.
It seems like everyone that really loves their games loves them despite what their games are and not because of them. People that run around in environments doing whatever they want to do and making up "their own story" rather than doing any of the intentional content that Bethesda ever designed.

None of their games have ever had meaningful story, any form of consequences, or good mechanics. Not even when compared to any of their contemporaries.

Baldurs Gate 1/2 and Fallout 1/2 came out in the 90's and had better stories, mechanics, and consequences. Any other FPS game in the 90s or 00's that had any clout all had better FPS mechanics.

Starfield made a bunch of money, but if Bethesda doesn't change their thinking I think things are looking pretty bad for Elder Scrolls 6 or whatever the hell number they are on now.

I honestly don't think it matters.

People's memories are short. As an example: Diablo 3 to Diablo 4. Blizzard had been doing scummy things and launched a broken game in D3. But after 10 years and a bunch of patches people I suppose "forgot", and bought into Blizzard's broken game (requiring a removal of the RMAH, huge issues with Jay Wilson the lead game designer, an expansion, and several years of patch fixes). We're only 3 seasons deep into D4 and most people have not come back. Or they pop up for a week or two and then leave again. It's not even close to what a D2 or even a D3 season looked like with massive player numbers years afterwards. And both D2/D3 only ever had one expansion. It was mostly 6-8 years of seasonal content with huge player numbers.

And yet for Blizzard/Diablo like Bethesda and their next game, I would expect that people will continue to buy their games in record numbers. D4 was the biggest Diablo launch ever. Starfield was Bethesda's biggest launch ever. And that was in light of the previous games from both studios being.... poor. (Fallout 76 and D3 for reference. Although I suppose if you're looking at other Blizzard launches, Overwatch 1 and 2 as well as Hearthstone came out in the middle).

 

[peppergomez]

Yep, agreed. Gamers will basically buy poop on a stick as long as it's marketed effectively. Bethesda is a great example of a studio who has mastered the art of sexy marketing and my hunch is that gamers will continually fall for it. I'd love to be proven wrong and see ES6 fall on its ass because it too will no doubt be a turd.

 

[Bigbacon]

I think people are starting to catch on to the fact that Bethesda's formula is extremely stale. People are looking at Cyberpunk 2077 and Balder's Gate 3 and even games that came out not too long ago and they are seeing what's possible in an RPG and it shows just how archaic Bethesda's designs and gameplay mechanics are. Starfield made a bunch of money, but if Bethesda doesn't change their thinking I think things are looking pretty bad for Elder Scrolls 6 or whatever the hell number they are on now.

I don't think its the formula that is stale, its the way the game is presented which makes it stale. Nothing stands out because its just a vast empty places. All the planets are lifeless, nothing is memorable. Even down to there being nothing but human people everywhere. If you look back at Skyrim, FO3/NV/4, etc, you had a very well defined world with different races and place settings that were well crafted. Its like Starfield they just said "ITS IN SPACE!" and left it at that.

 

[chameleoneel]

Some of the visual comparisons for the new color and lighting changes, are pretty big. I'd say Starfield is finally just about out of beta...>_>

I played a chunk of it at release and think its a decent game. And although it ran stable, it definitely seemed a bit pre-mature.

 

[AceGoober]

Fixed an issue that could occur on some enemies causing them to stand instead of falling to the ground.

So they're telling us an enemy in extremely low gravity (0.1 to 5 or so) is going to fall over? Seems out of place to me.

Fixed rare save game corruptions on PC (MSS and Steam).

Welcome bug fix. Was getting frustrating going back to previous saves.

Fixed an issue that could cause airlock doors to sometimes appear floating in sky when arriving at locations.

Happened a couple of times to me. Once after retrieving the first artifact.

The Pale Lady: Fixed rare case of inaccessible ship crew log data slate making it impossible to complete the encounter.

Encounter never started for me even though I boarded the ship.

 

[Algrim]

So they're telling us an enemy in extremely low gravity (0.1 to 5 or so) is going to fall over? Seems out of place to me.

If there’s any gravity they should fall over, eventually! I’ve sometimes had to cast Sense Star Stuff just to ensure that the enemy standing up over there is really dead instead of someone I missed coming into an area.

One thing I’m glad they haven’t touched: If you ‘accidentally’ hit their boost pack and they go taking off into the great beyond (or impact into the ceiling above if you’re indoors). I love stealth sniping and it’s fun to do even though it doesn’t count towards the headshot achievement.

 

[TaintedSquirrel]

FSR 3 next week.

https://twitter.com/BethesdaStudios/status/1753448192488747186

 

[KickAssCop]

Blurry shit next week.

Anyways, game worth playing some more now with the upgrades? I finished it and never went back even when I said I would lol.

 

[Mchart]

Blurry shit next week.

Anyways, game worth playing some more now with the upgrades? I finished it and never went back even when I said I would lol.

I got around 100 hours out of it even at launch. I stopped playing and I’m waiting for the first DLC. Regardless I feel that it’s worth playing if you like the Bethesda style. Although it’s definitely not a Skyrim.

 

[polonyc2]

Starfield Beta Update 1.9.67 Adds FSR 3, XeSS, Fixes Save Issues and More

https://bethesda.net/en/game/starfi...starfield-update-1-9-67-notes-february-7-2024

GRAPHICS
-Added support for AMD FidelityFXTM Super Resolution 3 (FSR 3) (PC)
-Added support for Intel Xe Super Sampling (XeSS) (PC)
-Fixed an issue that could make the clouds appear to vibrate when using DLSS performance mode (PC)
-Fixed minor visual artifact that could occur when aiming with a weapon or task swapping

STABILITY
-Changed how FormIDs are freed when loading saves. This should improve stability for saves that have visited many locations
-Fixed a crash that could happen when making changes to the ship that required all items to be moved to the cargo bay in the Ship Builder menu

MISCELLANEOUS
-Reverted a change that caused the data menu to open when taking screenshots with F12 (PC)
-Fixed an issue causing the resolution scale to reset to 1.0 when switching from Fullscreen to Windowed mode when using DLSS (PC)

 

[vegeta535]

6 months worth of patches = DLSS, FoV slider, and improved lighting. The rest are bugfixes.
Game's biggest issues are a ton of QoL type stuff which Bethesda hasn't touched.

Which none of which make the game good or fun.

 

[M76]

It's been a "hot take" except with the minority of gamers that actually want to play cohesive games: but Bethesda hasn't really produced a good game ever as far as I can tell.
It seems like everyone that really loves their games loves them despite what their games are and not because of them. People that run around in environments doing whatever they want to do and making up "their own story" rather than doing any of the intentional content that Bethesda ever designed.

None of their games have ever had meaningful story, any form of consequences, or good mechanics. Not even when compared to any of their contemporaries.

That's all true, and yet it begs the question: Did people only now realize that they are bad games? I thought everyone was on the same page about Bethesda RPGs, that they are pretty lame with terrible stories, but great for making your own fun in them as the player ignoring how Bethesda intended you to play them. Oblivion, Skyrim, Fallout 3 were all a joke compared to other contemporary games in design, storytelling, physics, mechanics, just about every metric imaginable. So why now? What made people turn on Bethesda?

 

[Furious_Styles]

That's all true, and yet it begs the question: Did people only now realize that they are bad games? I thought everyone was on the same page about Bethesda RPGs, that they are pretty lame with terrible stories, but great for making your own fun in them as the player ignoring how Bethesda intended you to play them. Oblivion, Skyrim, Fallout 3 were all a joke compared to other contemporary games in design, storytelling, physics, mechanics, just about every metric imaginable. So why now? What made people turn on Bethesda?

Probably because there are so many more games that allow you to do that stuff now. It's sorta like the "open world" aspect that used to be exclusive to a small number of titles but is now everywhere.

 

[M76]

Probably because there are so many more games that allow you to do that stuff now. It's sorta like the "open world" aspect that used to be exclusive to a small number of titles but is now everywhere.

Not nearly enough, there are certainly no open world games set in space that lets you just roam about. Except for star citizen which is still not a game.

 

[TaintedSquirrel]

Not nearly enough, there are certainly no open world games set in space that lets you just roam about. Except for star citizen which is still not a game.

Starbound is worth checking out.


View: https://store.steampowered.com/app/211820/Starbound/

 

[NightReaver]

Not nearly enough, there are certainly no open world games set in space that lets you just roam about. Except for star citizen which is still not a game.

Maybe not as many people care enough about that type of setting to overlook the usual "Bethesda-ness".

 

[Furious_Styles]

Maybe not as many people care enough about that type of setting to overlook the usual "Bethesda-ness".

Yeah I wasn't limiting it to the space setting since we were talking about Bethesda games in general.

 

[peppergomez]

My hot take is that Bethesda's overhyped marketing finally caught up to them and bit them in the ass.
A lot of people probably thought they were getting an awesome vibrant thrilling space adventure which is why they preordered the game and then they got what they got , which was none of those things. And yes, games like BG3 and cyberpunk In its current polished state have significantly raised people's expectations at the main stream level.

That said , I fully expect tons of gamers to fall for Todd's hype when ES6 comes around.

 

[polonyc2]

My hot take is that Bethesda's overhyped marketing finally caught up to them and bit them in the ass.
A lot of people probably thought they were getting an awesome vibrant thrilling space adventure which is why they preordered the game and then they got what they got , which was none of those things. And yes, games like BG3 and cyberpunk In its current polished state have significantly raised people's expectations at the main stream level.

That said , I fully expect tons of gamers to fall for Todd's hype when ES6 comes around.

I think more people fell for it because Starfield was a new ip and people thought they might try something different

 

[NightReaver]

I think more people fell for it because Starfield was a new ip and people thought they might try something different

This. I remember quite a few people expecting Beth to change it up with the shift in setting.

Then it turned out to just be (worse) Skyrim in space.

 

[UnknownSouljer]

That's all true, and yet it begs the question: Did people only now realize that they are bad games? I thought everyone was on the same page about Bethesda RPGs, that they are pretty lame with terrible stories, but great for making your own fun in them as the player ignoring how Bethesda intended you to play them.

I don't know if that was necessarily well known or not. That's why I said it the way I did, that it's mostly been a hot take for a small player base that have long stated these things about Bethesda games.

I remember playing Skyrim, and honestly just being bored. There was nothing in that game to do, at least nothing in the game to do that mattered. After joining half the factions (because you can and there are no restrictions - the "super secret" thieves guild and assassins guild also didn't matter at all. And they had zero impact in the game world. Why even have them there?) I honestly got bored and never even bothered to finish the game.

And while there are other people out there with a similar experience, we seem to be in the minority. All the clips I watched at that time was people seth ro ga-ing NPC's off cliffs and doing stuff with the physics engine and whatever. None of that ever interested me. I just wanted to play a good game and Bethesda never delivered.

As far as I can tell, people knew this stuff and still loved these games, I just did a quick DDG search, and pulled up this old Reddit thread about the "big as an ocean, deep as a puddle" phrase (I forgot the reviewer that popularized it... anyway), and someone literally breaks down how nothing you do in Skyrim matters, but big lovers of these titles basically respond with: "head cannon is the only thing that matters". And they use the word "sublime" as descriptive of the game world. I would.... not use that word in any way shape or form for Skyrim, other than perhaps ironically.

Anyway. The point being that people legitmately thought that Skyrim's... lack of any consequence or story was a feature not a bug.
https://www.reddit.com/r/skyrim/comments/1gvhm3/wide_as_an_ocean_and_deep_as_a_puddle_a_rant/

Oblivion, Skyrim, Fallout 3 were all a joke compared to other contemporary games in design, storytelling, physics, mechanics, just about every metric imaginable. So why now? What made people turn on Bethesda?

That's a good question. I don't really have an answer, other than to say that perhaps Starfield doesn't play to any of Bethesda's strengths. Because there isn't a big uninterrupted game world you can play in Starfield, Bethesda's "adventures you have along the way" core game design couldn't really be done. As a result, for most Starfield feels bereft of content. Even content you'd otherwise make for yourself. And without that, Bethesda's back and forth fetch quest design becomes painfully obvious and gated behind multiple load screens. In other words, there is nothing to hide what few mechanics exist behind any other tapestry. (You might forget that you're essentially doing fetch quests in Skyrim when you've done a few caves, explored a minor city, and climbed some mountains on the way back and forth to your destination).

And because you're not a part of some big map you can wonder to from place to place, mechanics like base building feel far less meaningful. You're on a cold dead rock somewhere. If you really love being away from everyone and all civilization it might feel like paradise, but I think for most it felt like "why bother". This is in contrast to CP2077, where even though the Apartment system is basically equally as pointless, you felt like each location was at least part of the greater whole. Exploration even if also equally as pointless was more interesting. etc etc. You basically can apply this thought to all of the ways Bethesda makes games.

My summary: perhaps it's because Starfield makes the lack of content more apparent than any previous Bethesda game that at least felt content rich and jam packed from edge to edge with a map that was at least designed.

Not nearly enough, there are certainly no open world games set in space that lets you just roam about. Except for star citizen which is still not a game.

No Man's Sky is the most obvious just wander about game. And it has all the mechanics that a lot of people expected Starfield to have. Such as being able to fly into space or land on planets seamlessly without loading screens or fast travel. It's perhaps not the most interesting as it's basically a survival game, and if that's not your thing it's not your thing. But it basically has all the mechanics Starfield put in in terms of survival but actually holds the player to them.

Elite: Dangerous also does all the flying in and off planets thing and has perhaps more varied gameplay to NMS. With a big focus on ship to ship combat. Still allows for mining and landing on planets and hoping about etc though. Full customization of ships for different purposes. Etc.


View: https://youtu.be/EkrQvV0Yrb4?feature=shared

 

[sharknice]

That's all true, and yet it begs the question: Did people only now realize that they are bad games? I thought everyone was on the same page about Bethesda RPGs, that they are pretty lame with terrible stories, but great for making your own fun in them as the player ignoring how Bethesda intended you to play them. Oblivion, Skyrim, Fallout 3 were all a joke compared to other contemporary games in design, storytelling, physics, mechanics, just about every metric imaginable. So why now? What made people turn on Bethesda?

I figured Starfield was probably more like Fallout in space than Skyrim in space but I would still enjoy it. But I didn't.

I liked Oblivion and Skyrim because there is a ton of freedom and you can play how you want. There weren't other games that had comparable freedom and size like them at the time. Remember how old these games are. Oblivion came out in 2006 and Skyrim 2011.

I didn't like their Fallout games nearly as much because the gunplay wasn't fun for me. I don't enjoy purposely inacurate weapons or using VATs. Also there weren't nearly as many NPCs to mess with, which was a lot of the fun I had in the Elder Scrolls games. The magic from the Elder Scrolls games added a lot of variety to the gameplay too which didn't have an equivalent in Fallout.


All the "in space" stuff they added to Starfield ended up being things I don't enjoy. I didn't find the ship building or outpost building fun, I didn't find the space travel or combat fun, I didn't find exploring planets or gathering resources fun.

And the stuff in the game that I liked about Oblivion and Skyrim hasn't really improved signifcantly.

I could mostly avoid all the stuff I don't like but the game constantly tries to bait me into doing them. Maybe I'll just hardcore focus on not getting baited and try playing again at some poin if a good mod comes out or some sort of gameplay patch.

 

[Flogger23m]

That's all true, and yet it begs the question: Did people only now realize that they are bad games? I thought everyone was on the same page about Bethesda RPGs, that they are pretty lame with terrible stories, but great for making your own fun in them as the player ignoring how Bethesda intended you to play them. Oblivion, Skyrim, Fallout 3 were all a joke compared to other contemporary games in design, storytelling, physics, mechanics, just about every metric imaginable. So why now? What made people turn on Bethesda?

Calling them bad is a bit of an extreme. Clearly many people enjoyed them. I only played FO3, FONV (this was made by Obsidian but clearly designed like FO3) and FO4. The stories in all of them were generally good enough for the type of game they were. What they did have were nice side stories, good exploration. Almost every area has a proper quest of some type and feels like it has a purpose. The exploration is actually fun and interesting. Even today most open world games the exploration is an enemy camp/outpost rearranged slightly. The side stories were often quite good as well. The story quest lines could branch out a little bit as well giving some choice.

I think the problem is the standard of the average gamer has increased. The bugs that were acceptable maybe 10-15 years ago won't get as much of a pass these days. Non-voice acted protagonists are lame, having characters talk to a mute is immersion breaking. Non-voiced side quests come off as low quality, although that used to be the norm. Clunky controls are not as acceptable these days. If you release a game in 2023, things like this will probably received more negative attention than it did in the past. Our standards have simply gone up.

 

[M76]

Starbound is worth checking out.

I know I said open world game, but I meant AAA open world RPG. I'm especially not into the whole 8-bit imitation game genre.

Maybe not as many people care enough about that type of setting to overlook the usual "Bethesda-ness".

I think it is the opposite, the space setting attracted people who were not familiar with bethesda-ness.

My hot take is that Bethesda's overhyped marketing finally caught up to them and bit them in the ass.
A lot of people probably thought they were getting an awesome vibrant thrilling space adventure which is why they preordered the game and then they got what they got , which was none of those things. And yes, games like BG3 and cyberpunk In its current polished state have significantly raised people's expectations at the main stream level.

I have not followed Starfield's marketing that closely, was there anything in it that suggested the game would be that different than their previous ones?
My hot take is that cyberpunk's current "polished" state is not significantly different than its launch state was. I'm glad that I played the game when it came out.

That said , I fully expect tons of gamers to fall for Todd's hype when ES6 comes around.

I expected we all knew what we were getting. I think in Bethesda's case practicing the soft bigotry of low expectations is fully justified, and that goes for ES6 as well.

I figured Starfield was probably more like Fallout in space than Skyrim in space but I would still enjoy it. But I didn't.

It is Fallout 4 in space, and I enjoyed it more than Skyrim and Fallout 4 put together.

I liked Oblivion and Skyrim because there is a ton of freedom and you can play how you want. There weren't other games that had comparable freedom and size like them at the time. Remember how old these games are. Oblivion came out in 2006 and Skyrim 2011.

I'm not sure what freedom exists in skyrim and oblivion but missing from Starfield? What are the alternatives to Starfield? And I mean within the genre, not some indie 2D game.

I didn't like their Fallout games nearly as much because the gunplay wasn't fun for me. I don't enjoy purposely inacurate weapons or using VATs. Also there weren't nearly as many NPCs to mess with, which was a lot of the fun I had in the Elder Scrolls games. The magic from the Elder Scrolls games added a lot of variety to the gameplay too which didn't have an equivalent in Fallout.

In Fallout 3 VATS was a necessity, since the gunplay was unbearably bad without it I didn't hate it, it was different. Fallout 4 improved on the gunplay enough that VATS was no longer a necessity. And Starfield improved on it even more, where I found it enjoyable in its own right. I actually never liked magic, and thus never even used it once in either Oblivion or Skyrim. Which means I don't like the powers in Starfield either.

All the "in space" stuff they added to Starfield ended up being things I don't enjoy. I didn't find the ship building or outpost building fun, I didn't find the space travel or combat fun, I didn't find exploring planets or gathering resources fun.

Those are almost exactly the sources of fun for me in the game, except for resource gathering, that is no fun. But I have not found that fun in any single game, even beyond bethesda games.

I could mostly avoid all the stuff I don't like but the game constantly tries to bait me into doing them. Maybe I'll just hardcore focus on not getting baited and try playing again at some poin if a good mod comes out or some sort of gameplay patch.

The simplest thing that improved the game for me greatly is setting resell prices to 0.5 instead of 0.1. That made looting enemies and random locations worth it, while also made the progress of gathering resources less grindy, as you can simply buy most as long as you have the money.

 

[UnknownSouljer]

Calling them bad is a bit of an extreme. Clearly many people enjoyed them.

Well, I think it depends on if you can have objectivity about your views or not.
I've brought this up many times: McDonald's is objectively bad, but people buy and eat the heck out of them. The same can be said with basically all soda (or pop, or whatever you call it in your region). They're both made from empty calories with no nutritional value. Even if you claim to like the taste (which obviously people must, as why else are they eating it?) they are both horrible for your health and have no redeeming value other than their cost and their subjective taste.

So Bethesda games can also like McDonald's be "subjectively good" while also being "objectively bad". And I would not look at popularity as a barometer for quality. I could also bring up examples inside of pop music, any fad or trend, etc etc. Tons of people like stuff that's bad. In fact I would go as far as to say, there are things we all like that are objectively bad. And I think people should at least get to a place where they accept those things.

The "issue" there comes up that people don't like being "hated on" or having something they like getting trashed. But hey, if you liked n'Sync in the 90's I feel like you should just accept that you like or liked bad music and just be okay with that. I think there are some turning points there as people will call shows "guilty pleasures" or say they like "trash TV". I wouldn't glorify objectively garbage stuff, but at least there is an acknowledgement there that what they're watching isn't quality content.

 

[LukeTbk]

and have no redeeming value other than their cost and their subjective taste.

Speed to eat, to acquire, taste, ability to be eaten while driving they have a long list of objectively superior aspect to them to a long list of food option and the reasons people eat them. Cost is not a strength of McDonald, it is quite expensive (at least in my market). You accep to pay more for McDonald than a list of alternative for its convenience.

McDonald is not empty calories with no nutritional value (that only an impression made by being born in a modern and rich world where lack of protein does not tend to exist), it contains protein (depending of what you pick) the most important and historically not always easy to get of all food. A single double quarter pounder has 47g of protein.

The idea that coca-cola is objectively bad seem a misunderstanding of the word bad or objectively , the goal of a coca-cola (outside high-end athlete, cyclist, nhler player, etc... often use it for rapid sugar-caloriy input) is entertainment, is it good or bad at entertaining its drinker ?

 

[M76]

Calling them bad is a bit of an extreme. Clearly many people enjoyed them. I only played FO3, FONV (this was made by Obsidian but clearly designed like FO3) and FO4. The stories in all of them were generally good enough for the type of game they were. What they did have were nice side stories, good exploration. Almost every area has a proper quest of some type and feels like it has a purpose. The exploration is actually fun and interesting. Even today most open world games the exploration is an enemy camp/outpost rearranged slightly. The side stories were often quite good as well. The story quest lines could branch out a little bit as well giving some choice.

But they were bad, what else should I call them? I enjoyed them too, but I can still admit that in many ways they were sub-par, and not just in hindsight but compared to other games of their era. Bethesda games always had the lamest main stories and worst VO. What I always enjoyed in their games is the exploration, the venturing into the unknown, that includes some of the better side quest lines too. Which is the exact same thing I enjoyed in Starfied, the exploration and some side quests, and the ship builder, and being a pirate and hijacking ships.

I think the problem is the standard of the average gamer has increased. The bugs that were acceptable maybe 10-15 years ago won't get as much of a pass these days. Non-voice acted protagonists are lame, having characters talk to a mute is immersion breaking. Non-voiced side quests come off as low quality, although that used to be the norm. Clunky controls are not as acceptable these days. If you release a game in 2023, things like this will probably received more negative attention than it did in the past. Our standards have simply gone up.

I have a suspicion even at the risk of sounding condescending, but I think the average gamer has no standards. They rely on influencers to tell them what's what, and those decided to give the thumbs down to Starfield, not because of any principle, but simply because giving the audience a big juicy L from an AAA publisher generates more clicks than being honest. Am I cynical? Damn right I am.

Just the other day I saw a video on YT praising BG3, where everyone was sealclapping in the comments how great it is. But then I noticed something, in the video the models kept clipping into walls, NPCs, objects, all kinds of crap. If the wind was blowing in the other direction then the exact same clip could be used to bash the game. And if Starfield showed that kind of clipping I bet you anything they would not let that slide. It would be presented as a laughing stock instead.

 

[LukeTbk]

I think the problem is the standard of the average gamer has increased.

I am playing Gabriel Knight 1 (the level of things we accepted back in the days was quite different), yes has you experience games that do something better it can create an expectation, things from UI to control are expected to have a modern polish to them by many modern player.

 

[UnknownSouljer]

Speed to eat, to acquire, taste, ability to be eaten while driving they have a long list of objectively superior aspect to them to a long list of food option and the reasons people eat them. Cost is not a strength of McDonald, it is quite expensive (at least in my market). You accep to pay more for McDonald than a list of alternative for its convenience.

McDonald is not empty calories with no nutritional value (that only an impression made by being born in a modern and rich world where lack of protein does not tend to exist), it contains protein (depending of what you pick) the most important and historically not always easy to get of all food. A single double quarter pounder has 47g of protein.

The idea that coca-cola is objectively bad seem a misunderstanding of the word bad or objectively , the goal of a coca-cola (outside high-end athlete, cyclist, nhler player, etc... often use it for rapid sugar-caloriy input) is entertainment, is it good or bad at entertaining its drinker ?

This is the most pedantic post I’ve seen in a while. And I’m known for them.

Everything I stated could be shown scientifically. Any benefit from McDonalds is overshadowed by its massive amount of saturated fats, bad cholesterols, and explosively high calorie counts. Pointing out its high cost just makes its worthlessness and connection to popularity all the more apparent.

All soda is comprised of straight chemicals. And we could get into all the reasons that’s bad or just basically call it a leading contributing factor of diseases like diabetes. I assume you also don’t hang out with people they also actually play sports at least not ones as the pro or semi-pro level anyway. Because I do due to the nature of what I shoot. You will never see any of them drink a soda. Ever. It could be described as a performance dehancer. They all have ways of getting calories into their system that aren’t made from 100% chemicals. They out of anyone understand how their intake directly affects performance.

Basically the best you can say is that if you’re an ultra marathoner or otherwise burn through 20k+ calories in a day that you can minimize the bad affects of these foods. They are objectively bad. You can’t tell me that there aren’t any number of other things you could consume instead that are of equal or lesser cost that are way more healthy.

And this is setting aside that these were also just examples while not really addressing or talking about the idea of objectivity. Which in this case I’d say that you’re having to throw in extreme use cases to call what is bad, good. The irony of this post lacking objectivity.

And to that end you could call all eating entertainment. You’re deliberately trying to mix subjective “good” with objective good. Which is the exact notion I’m differentiating. You can subjectively call soda good because its “entertaining” but you can’t call it “objectively” good because of its content. Unless you want to literally ignore all medical science.

 

[LukeTbk]

. I assume you also don’t hang out with people they also actually play sports. Because I do due to the nature of what I shoot. You will never see any of them drink a soda. Ever

it is extremely common and well known, I once went to high cyclist competition and one of them dropped its water bottle, it was half and half coke and water (it is obviously not bad for an athlete or anyone doing a lot of activity to consume a lot of calorie and sugar, liquid calorie like coke being an easy way and good way to do that):

Everything I stated could be shown scientifically

This is a bit misunderstanding science as well as objectivity, I think, science is not about something being good or bad. If you say McDonaild is objectively worst for your health than X other option, yes, that quite different than saying it is objectively bad without stating at what. Does the ability to be eating fast and tasting better has more value.

You’re deliberately trying to mix subjective “good” with objective good

Yes this was the whole argument, a disagreement of where the line between subjectivity and objectivity start, a round wheel is objectively better if you want a car to go fast, the goal will often need to be stated when you go into a multi-faceted with competing good and bad point among them, it become a how you weight each of those and quickly start to get subjective.

 

[UnknownSouljer]

it is extremely common and well known, I once went to high cyclist competition and one of them dropped its water bottle, it was half and half coke and water (it is obviously not bad for an athlete or anyone doing a lot of activity to consume a lot of calorie and sugar, liquid calorie like coke being an easy way and good way to do that):

View attachment 633416

They could be consuming any sports drink instead which doesn’t have all of those chemicals in it. I would say you’re just watching people that are compromising.

It would be cheaper and ”healthier” to mix pure granulated sugar with water than drink Coke (which essentially is what Gatorade is). Because there is no way you can ever tell me that the chemicals in Coke are ever good for you. Because they literally are not.

This is a bit misunderstanding science as well as objectivity, I think, science is not about something being good or bad. If you say McDonaild is objectively worst for your health than X other option, yes, that quite different than saying it is objectively bad without stating at what.

I see this as trying to manipulate the data into edge cases.

Put it like this: tell me what medical scientist would recommend a regular diet of McDonald’s? Would it be safe to say: zero? (Other than ones paid by McDonald’s of course).

Similarly why is any food called a “superfood”. What implications “objectively” does that have?

You can disagree with me and try this line of “well I can find a case where doing this is ‘okay’”, but I just see that as being pedantic and entirely missing the point.

Does the ability to be eating fast and tasting better has more value.

To health? No.

Can you create an objective opinion based around other factors? Yes.

Spoiler: You added this late.

Yes this was the whole argument, a disagreement of where the line between subjectivity and objectivity start, a round wheel is objectively better if you want a car to go fast, the goal will often need to be stated when you go into a multi-faceted with competing good and bad point among them, it become a how you weight each of those and quickly start to get subjective.

I agree there are boundaries that can be argued. But I would say that the ones you're arguing for in the case of these food are terrible at best examples. Which is specifically why I selected them in the first place.

You'd have a better time talking about the merits of a taco, just as a common example that has been passed around. That can contain a lot of good healthy/fresh ingredients and the worst thing about it is that it's traditionally fried (cooked on a flat top, the tortillas and the meat) and often uses red meat (which also isn't necessarily inherently bad as you've noted).

Health is something that I think a lot of people have been playing with for a long time trying to justify certain things, so perhaps it's a push button item for me. And I think a good chunk of that has come down to the fact that people won't call a spade a spade. We have an obesity epidemic in the US and because of "inclusivity" no one wants to address the fact that it is unhealthy (all body types are beautiful!) and that 99.999% of it is due to what people are sticking in their face (perhaps that made up stat is "high", but the point is it's far less to do with "body type" or having diseases than it is down to literally what and how much of what people are eating).

So while I take your point that you can eat a large chunk of foods in a healthy way by using high degrees of discretion and self-control, the obvious truth is that a majority of people are not eating in that way. And it's also obvious that there are general foods that you can eat vast quantities of that would have to be so excessively high to ever see a problem with them.

eg: You could eat salad with no dressing (just say 5-6 different types of vegetables and 1 type of lettuce/spinach/green mix) 3x a day and the health benefits are obvious and apparent and it is literally impossible to gain weight from. Complimented with basically any cooked protein of your choice (or even black beans/hummus on the salad to add protein or fish or chicken) and the building blocks are all there.
Contrasted with McDonalds where there is no way you can eat a McDonald's Burger 3x a day and be healthy. Even if you ran 10 miles a day you'd struggle to burn off all the calories and running 10 miles a day would also run the risk of breaking down all the joints and ligaments in your legs. The amount of maintenance necessary goes up. Meanwhile you're not getting anything else from a quarter pounder as you note other than stupid amounts of calories, unhealthy levels of cholesterol, a tremendous amount of lipids, and some protein.

Anyway, the long winded point is the same: it's obvious that there are certain foods quantifiably way better for general health than others. And foods that quickly lead to unhealth than others. And also that humans in general do not have excellent discipline either when it comes to health.

 

[Flogger23m]

But they were bad, what else should I call them? I enjoyed them too, but I can still admit that in many ways they were sub-par, and not just in hindsight but compared to other games of their era.

Can you really consider them to be bad if you enjoyed them? Sub-par certainly, but bad?

I have a suspicion even at the risk of sounding condescending, but I think the average gamer has no standards. They rely on influencers to tell them what's what, and those decided to give the thumbs down to Starfield, not because of any principle, but simply because giving the audience a big juicy L from an AAA publisher generates more clicks than being honest. Am I cynical? Damn right I am.

For Starfield it has more to do with the developer replying to criticism. That is seemingly when the overall opinion of the game went from "meh" to "this sucks" and got a mostly negative collective review score on Steam. Up front the reception wasn't bad. It went south when the developers started leaving comments on reviews.

Just the other day I saw a video on YT praising BG3, where everyone was sealclapping in the comments how great it is. But then I noticed something, in the video the models kept clipping into walls, NPCs, objects, all kinds of crap. If the wind was blowing in the other direction then the exact same clip could be used to bash the game.

I don't have much interest in BG3. It looks janky to me. Top down style games are not something I have much interest in, and how it flips to a cinematic view for cutscenes feels off for that type of game. I'm sure it is okay, but I am thinking it is another Zelda BOTW situation. Very overrated.

 

[NightReaver]

Just the other day I saw a video on YT praising BG3, where everyone was sealclapping in the comments how great it is. But then I noticed something, in the video the models kept clipping into walls, NPCs, objects, all kinds of crap. If the wind was blowing in the other direction then the exact same clip could be used to bash the game. And if Starfield showed that kind of clipping I bet you anything they would not let that slide. It would be presented as a laughing stock instead.

BG3 is a fun enough game in general to overlook any jank.

Starfield isn't.

There's really nothing deeper to it.