-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Does Starfield feel "next gen" to you?
- Thread starter GetInTheRobot
- Start date
Gameplay Gods Bless
Member
Imagine making a BGS game without the BGS engine. It wouldn't do any of the cool shit BGS games do.
artsi
Member
I'm pretty certain that Night City has more scope than all of Starfield's cities combined, and it has environmental destruction which is pretty much non-existing in Starfield.
I don't really know what interaction you mean otherwise - what can you do in New Atantis, Neon or Akila that you can't do in Night City?
Last edited:
cripterion
Member
100% yes.
Game is frequently stunning and is one of the best looking games ever made.
No offense but these look nothing special and instantly remind me of this :
BlackTron
Member
Make a new one. They've been bolting on to the same base since Morrowind. Sure, Nintendo extensively modified their engine from OOT to make Twilight Princess. But by the time they got to BOTW, they had to make a new one from scratch to meet their needs. It was obviously necessary to prevent the engine from holding the series back.
Maybe I'm being unreasonable -we can't expect BGS to make their own engine from scratch, and a ready-to-go product wouldn't fit the needs of their game. It's really on us to lower our expectations in modern gaming and just accept where we ended up, with a codebase that stretches back to Gamebyro engine in 1997. It's not like BGS is now part of the largest software company in the world with nigh infinite resources to figure out how to make their next AAA game or anything lol
EDMIX
Member
doubt.
Bought both games day 1 and Starfield is MILES ahead of Cyberpunk in regards to scope and actually being a fucking RPG....
What can Starfield do that Cyberpunk can't? Lets see their enemies know how to drive fucking vehicles and shoot at you sir, in space no less
Customizable vehicles like the ship..
working train station, the thing that CDPR couldn't figure out despite the likes of GTA 3 having this function lol
Don't even get me started on Cyberpunk not even having factions or guilds to join, you just choose some fucking shit that shows a different opening and provides basically nothing for the rest of the game lol You actually have REAL factions in Starfield, you do REAL MISSIONS regarding those groups
The fact that 3 years later some of that shit they are struggling with and just charging people for DLC, yet a game in fucking space with customizable ships, 1000 planets, bases that you can build and actual REAL factions aka (guilds) and many more, but shit, Cyberpunk has more scope?
Who the fuck here is believing a game that can't even figure out how to get bad guys to drive cars, has MORE SCOPE then a game in fucking space with 1000 planets and you have space battles and can board the ships? Sir, even if we just said this is a game where they are not in space, but on earth and we substitute space ships for cars, imagine how bat shit crazy and nonsensical that sounds to claim the game with customizable cars, bad guys that can drive said cars and with factions that you can join, is less scope then the game lacks all of that....
I'm not here to argue that Starfield is next gen as these features are not unknown or brand new ideas, but shit neither is anything happening in Cyberpunk, I'd argue it even reverts back generations. You'd literally have a better argument saying this about Far Cry 6 vs Starfield.
The game has the player flying planets, driving boats, cars, bad guys can drive cars lol Thats fucking already MORE then what is happening in Cyberpunk to really feel this is a hill to die on. Not a game struggling with some shit Saint's Row reboot does flawlessly lol Of all the shit people said about that game, it had functions Cyberpunk doesn't, even Watchdog 3 does and many saw that as a flop in regards to quality, where the fuck does that land Cyberpunk in this if even that game is still doing more functions?
Cyberpunk is basically selling itself as a tech demo of a game you WISH existed
Last edited:
tok and ff16
Unknown Soldier
Member
Deus Ex: Mankind Divided was a very, very good looking game for it's time.No offense but these look nothing special and instantly remind me of this :
sertopico
Member
Oh look, the usual rant from edmix about cyberpunk with random fucks in every sentence which surely make your opinion more meaningful. Incredible that after 3 years you are still so butthurt.
Thankfully cdp has a different conception of role playing compared to bethesda.
JimmyRustler
Gold Member
Feels like it was made with PS3 in mind and then delayed two generations.
The cities look quite bleak, only some planets have nice vistas but ME had those too.
Bethesda needs to get their development together. Every game since Fallout 3 seems like it was released years after the originally planned date.
The cities look quite bleak, only some planets have nice vistas but ME had those too.
Bethesda needs to get their development together. Every game since Fallout 3 seems like it was released years after the originally planned date.
GymWolf
Member
This.
Starfield is the most static game i played in a while, you can't destroy jack shit, no objects, not even thin paper glass that scream breakable, just your usual explosive barrels and one type of door, the end.
If you need an editor\cheat engine to artificially spawn 10.000 objects to do what skyrim and crysis did almost 15 years ago then your game is not really that impressive physics\interaction wise.
Last edited:
VitoNotVito
Member
No it does not.
GymWolf
Member
Roleplaying in starfield is super fucking limited, not having a voiced protagonist does jack shit when the game clearly has an optimal way to play since all of your companions are boring goody 2 shoes that get mad if you kill or steal or take bribes etc, you have to bring a fucking robot to not have your balls crushed by judgemental fucks.
The factions are a joke, you can join all of them, with almost zero repercussions, you can fucking chose your background as uc citizen and soldier and you still have no citizenship even if those are the requisite, they can't even get their lore straight.
You can chose neon birth as background and your character is still gonna have "what is neon" between the possible questions he can ask to characters, the whole system is deep as a puddle and hastily put together with duct tape and spit.
New vegas did 10x better than starfield how many years ago? They even downgraded their npcs system so now they don't even have a day night cycle and you can't kill them when they go to sleep (because they never go to sleep or have an house except for the few members of constellation that sleep at the lodge.
Quests are very stricted with maybe one variation or different solution and no real thinking on how to solve them most of the times.
The game is the quintessential definition of a mile wide and an inch deep, the more you play the more apparent it become.
Is cyberpunk much better? No
Was the game broken at launch? Yes, as much as starfield where i lost hours of progress because of quest-breaking bugs that i never had in more than 100 hours of cyberpunk (lucky me), and the amount of visual glitches and bugs is about the same, less bugged bethesda game but still more bugged than 99,99% of games on the market, let's be real.
So let's not act like starfield has this incredible roleplaying mechanics...it has a lot of them, and 90% are undercooked into oblivion and inconsequential.
It's funny you cite gta3 to troll cyberpunk when starfield npcs ia and reactions are worse than that game...i saw people shooting an inch afar from people's heads and no reaction from them, terrible.
And if they react, they look hilarious to say the least.
Last edited:
nowhat
Member
Slothbeing1209
Member
Last edited:
Pedro Motta
Member
LOL hell no.
Doctor Hades
Member
Sorry, I meant buildings in the city. If you enter one and it requires a load then the interior usually has blocked off windows or doors so you cannot see outside. If you enter a building that doesn't have a loading screen then the interior has windows that you can look out.
I get why they have done this because the exterior no longer exists but it is one of those things that makes the game feel dated in my opinion. The inconsistency with how buildings are accessed, some via a loading screen and others via a door that actually opens, is also another thing that breaks immersion. It shatters the illusion of being in a real place. It was fine 10-15 years ago but now? Sorry but no. I want huge explorable areas with minimal loading screens. We have super fast SSDs now and more available memory so there's no excuse for having constant loading screens in any game in 2023 in my opinion. Well, I guess there is an excuse for Bethesda and it's Creation Engine. It might have been updated over the years but this is basically a 20 year old engine at this point, likely held together by duct tape and blu-tack!!!
If Starfield had come out 10 years ago it would have blown me away completely. Now though it is just a good game but one with lots of flaws and annoyances that prevents it from being a truly great game. At 75 hours into the game, I am not sure if Starfield will be considered as one of the BGS greats in the same way as Morrowind, Oblivion or Fallout 3.
Last edited:
Doctor Hades
Member
Again, it can be inconsistent, but the texture quality is oftentimes incredible:
Yes, it is very easy to make Starfield look good in a screenshot because of the increased poly counts and higher resolution textures but this does not make it a next-gen game.
Play the game and talk to a character and the game can go from looking fantastic like that screenshot to looking like something from an early PS3 game with plastic looking faces, glitchy hair and bizarre lighting on the skin and eyes. Often faces can look incredibly flat like there is no lighting at all! I have also see weird glitches like with Sam Coe where his face looks darker in the bottom half and lighter at the top where his hat is supposed to be casting a shadow on his face!!!
It isn't just the odd occasion either; I have been speaking to as many characters as possible and I would say that the game only looks good-ish about 20% of the time, the other 80% look like something from Fallout 4 because the lighting just doesn't work in the scene. This happens because you can talk to anyone, anywhere so the artists cannot frame the scene and lighting to look good.
That said, Baldur's Gate 3 has this same freedom to speak to people anywhere and overall the lighting and dialogue scenes in that game look fantastic bar the odd animation hiccup. They are also visually more interesting and engaging to watch. In Starfield, characters just stand still, move their arms a bit and speak. They have all the life of a Thunderbirds puppet in my opinion, just with really good lip-syncing. It is about time Bethesda updated this as despite better modelling and facial animations, the dialogue sequences look really, really dated in my opinion. They make conversations seem more dull because they're static and Bethesda don't know how to do cutscenes. When you have multiple characters speaking the camera cuts to each person in the most unimaginative and bland way possible.
Last edited:
rodrigolfp
Haptic Gamepads 4 Life
What is being a RPG? Choosing some pre made dialog options?
All ctrl c, ctrl V go speak some more there, pick some objects and kill some of the same dudes there (dudes so dump that can barely shoot you back), same as CP side quests and activities.
Nothing but a freaking loading screen.
Last edited:
foamdino
Member
I'm enjoying Starfield as a BGS game, but in no way whatsoever is this something that couldn't have been done on hw a decade old. Yeah you'd wait longer on the loading screens, but there is nothing here that wouldn't be possible before this gen. Now the fact that it runs terribly is on Creation Engine - a good engine could do all that is being done (and probably more).
There is obviously a trade-off to keep the mod-ability of this engine vs actually using a modern engine - BGS decided that modding was more important than using a modern engine and so we live with a hyper-instanced space game that feels ancient in the way it handles dialog, animation, graphics (oh god the textures are woeful)
This is not next-gen
There is obviously a trade-off to keep the mod-ability of this engine vs actually using a modern engine - BGS decided that modding was more important than using a modern engine and so we live with a hyper-instanced space game that feels ancient in the way it handles dialog, animation, graphics (oh god the textures are woeful)
This is not next-gen
Neff
Member
Kinda. Visually and physics-wise it's pretty top tier, and the scale of the game is mind-boggling. Mechanically though it's actually pretty backwards-feeling, and I don't mean that in a bad way. The Bethesda formula still works and works very well, but it's a formula two generations old.
Mediocre Arachno-Lad
Member
Hayabusa83
Banned
Cookie Cutter Garbage.
recursive
Member
Yea but my spaceship flies like a fighter jet in an atmosphere.
delirium trigger
Member
Yes. It's clearly a step up from the likes of fallout 4 and the outer worlds.
Rocco Schiavone
Member
No
And
No
No No No
And
No
No No No
Last edited:
SlimySnake
Flashless at the Golden Globes
Nah, this game's interiors are well ahead of Deus Ex. Asset quality isnt nearly as high in Mankind Divided and lighting is really fucking flat in Deus Ex. Thats a nice screenshot though.No offense but these look nothing special and instantly remind me of this :
DeaDPo0L84
Member
DeaDPo0L84
Member
Funny enough the things that could have made it feel "next-gen" are the things people are mostly complaining about. Constant loading screens, lifeless NPC's, no AI, cities feel pointless, no space exploration. Everything feels so shallow, it takes next to nothing to see all the smoke and mirrors attempting to create this vast sense of a universe. This would be a really good attempt for a studios first game, but when we have previous games by the same studio to compare it to and it fails in many departments when doing so, there is no excuse.
Starfield is not next-gen and in several ways is even worse than previous Bethesda games when it comes to mechanics.
Remember when we had progressive dismemberment of enemies in Fallout 4 almost 10 years ago and we could loot corpses down to their underwear?
Lighting is terrible and AI is somehow even worse.
Cyberpunk 2077, which released 3 years ago in a sterile overworld, tried to immerse players by allowing limited environmental interactions (showers, sinks, mirrors, drinking, dancing) but Starfield doesn’t bother with the concept.
Some of the things I’m testing out right now is the ‘space’ part of the game and am noticing that the game falls flat even there as it’s an ‘interpretation’ of planetary exploration, even in our own solar system. This seems to have no excuse other than the fact that the engine is old and incapable of it.
Remember when we had progressive dismemberment of enemies in Fallout 4 almost 10 years ago and we could loot corpses down to their underwear?
Lighting is terrible and AI is somehow even worse.
Cyberpunk 2077, which released 3 years ago in a sterile overworld, tried to immerse players by allowing limited environmental interactions (showers, sinks, mirrors, drinking, dancing) but Starfield doesn’t bother with the concept.
Some of the things I’m testing out right now is the ‘space’ part of the game and am noticing that the game falls flat even there as it’s an ‘interpretation’ of planetary exploration, even in our own solar system. This seems to have no excuse other than the fact that the engine is old and incapable of it.
Last edited:
Mossybrew
Member
This x100. I'm hoping they have the time and motivation to upgrade beyond this ancient Bethesda house style for the next Elder Scrolls.
TransTrender
Gold Member
LoL
Absolutely no reaction when spraying bullets in crowded areas.
Those grenade explosions in Starfield are really bad, like something from Fallout 3 with all that screen shake.
Those fucking glares look like Mystery of the Druids!
Fucking savage
Last edited:
adamosmaki
Member
If next gen means making the UI more convoluted and needlessly annoying then yes.
Bethesda's Frankenstein of an engine feels last gen with terrible optimization
Bethesda's Frankenstein of an engine feels last gen with terrible optimization
HeWhoWalks
Gold Member
Compared to what? We have open world games that blow it away (and that's open world, never mind more linear games)! I guess I'm not seeing what's so top-tier about how it looks.
having played it a bit more, its like antithesis of what you'd consider next gen.
all the rpg systems here are at least 2 decades old at this point
graphics-wise it is last gen at best, fps gameplay they tried to shoo-in is laughable, with worst ai seen in a video game.
wont even mention load screens, zero sense of exploration at this point, its like beating a dead horse. its basically a space game without space.
game started as 8, quickly diving towards 6 for me, hope something really drastic happens at 20hrs point.
all the rpg systems here are at least 2 decades old at this point
graphics-wise it is last gen at best, fps gameplay they tried to shoo-in is laughable, with worst ai seen in a video game.
wont even mention load screens, zero sense of exploration at this point, its like beating a dead horse. its basically a space game without space.
game started as 8, quickly diving towards 6 for me, hope something really drastic happens at 20hrs point.
FIREKNIGHT2029
Member
No, there isn't anything next gen about it.
Crayon
Member
All I can weight in on is the graphics. Er...
Horizon on PS4.... that's PSFOUR.... looks like this:
Photomode, obivous but come the fuck on, it's a PS4. You can throw RDR2 on PS4 and a few others up there too, but it's a short-ass list to say the least. Graphics are hard. Should they be considered for "next-gen-ness" when so much of it is down to talent? IDK.
Horizon on PS4.... that's PSFOUR.... looks like this:
Photomode, obivous but come the fuck on, it's a PS4. You can throw RDR2 on PS4 and a few others up there too, but it's a short-ass list to say the least. Graphics are hard. Should they be considered for "next-gen-ness" when so much of it is down to talent? IDK.
Destruction-1002
Member
Bethesda is behind from other devs,All I can weight in on is the graphics. Er...
Horizon on PS4.... that's PSFOUR.... looks like this:
Photomode, obivous but come the fuck on, it's a PS4. You can throw RDR2 on PS4 and a few others up there too, but it's a short-ass list to say the least. Graphics are hard. Should they be considered for "next-gen-ness" when so much of it is down to talent? IDK.
Talking about Red Dead, well Red Dead Redemption 1 and Fallout New Vegas came out the same year
Last edited:
Crayon
Member
Bethesda is behind from other devs,
Talking about Red Dead, well Red Dead Redemption 1 and Fallout New Vegas came out the same year
Yep there's a good example of what I was thinking. Beth has no shortage of time and money. They are working with the limitations of that engine and maybe with graphics simply lower on the priority list. Either way, the graphics suck, but starfield would probably be more fairly (or at least informatively,) compared to their past work.
This is just flat out wrong, there are multiple points in faction quests where you have to break or piss off another faction with certain options. Traits play into this as well, with whole factions being locked out with certain options.
This is off the mark, it's hilarious.
speaking of off the mark, how is life in lalaland?
Last edited:
DownLikeBCPowder
Member
Bethesda is behind from other devs,
Talking about Red Dead, well Red Dead Redemption 1 and Fallout New Vegas came out the same year
Bethesda didn't make/develop New Vegas, they just published it.
Crayon
Member
It's a remix of fallout 3. It's bethesda's graphics/tech. Though it's true that new vegas was more low key with the sights and vistas.