Support NeoGAF

[Dolodolo]

What’s even funnier is that some people really believe that. Not that it makes any sense anyway to compare linear, guided, small-scale games with open world, open-ended and vast games.

Believe in what?
The gameplay of Tlou 2 and God of War has an almost perfect formula.

Bethesda games have never had good gameplay.
Their advantages are the atmosphere and good quest chains.

You can believe or not believe whatever you want.

The picture I was responding to is absurd in itself, because in Sony's main games, it is the gameplay that is one of the key factors that discards the "Cinema" argument

No one in their right mind would ever say that Bethesda games have amazing gameplay, because they don't.

 

[Hugare]

Ok. Why does this post read like an advertisement?

There was a member here some while ago that admited being paid to post good things about Cyberpunk after launch

So there's a chance

Anyway, game looks like the typical Bethesda game + No Man's Sky. It will be pretty good.

 

[GymWolf]

If it is half as revolutionary as f4\76 we are in for a treat guys...

 

[GigaBowser]

Believe in what?
The gameplay of Tlou 2 and God of War has an almost perfect formula.

Bethesda games have never had good gameplay.
Their advantages are the atmosphere and good quest chains.

You can believe or not believe whatever you want.

The picture I was responding to is absurd in itself, because in Sony's main games, it is the gameplay that is one of the key factors that discards the "Cinema" argument

No one in their right mind would ever say that Bethesda games have amazing gameplay, because they don't.

On the same token you can say wow Doom Eternal has better shooting than Starfield. This is kind of expected when the scope of the game is so much smaller and almost entirely based on shooting.

 

[Chukhopops]

Believe in what?
The gameplay of Tlou 2 and God of War has an almost perfect formula.

Bethesda games have never had good gameplay.
Their advantages are the atmosphere and good quest chains.

You can believe or not believe whatever you want.

The picture I was responding to is absurd in itself, because in Sony's main games, it is the gameplay that is one of the key factors that discards the "Cinema" argument

No one in their right mind would ever say that Bethesda games have amazing gameplay, because they don't.

I prefer by far the customization, freedom of choice, replayability, exploration etc of Bethesda games compared to the games you mentioned. And I think a lot of people do since Bethesda games sell gangbusters for over 20 years now.

You can have your opinion for sure but even comparing them is stupid, different genres, different ambitions, different goals.

 

[Dolodolo]

On the same token you can say wow Doom Eternal has better shooting than Starfield. This is kind of expected when the scope of the game is so much smaller and almost entirely based on shooting.

I am initially responding to a comment by a person whose picture is absurd.
It implies that Bethesda makes games and some people make movies, which is absurd because the main component that makes a game a game is the gameplay.

The answer to a stupid comparison is not the original comparison.

 

[Dolodolo]

You can have your opinion for sure but even comparing them is stupid, different genres, different ambitions, different goals.

Now tell this not to me, but to the guy who threw off the picture, which obviously seemed funny to him, but in fact it is funny for another reason.

 

[GymWolf]

On the same token you can say wow Doom Eternal has better shooting than Starfield. This is kind of expected when the scope of the game is so much smaller and almost entirely based on shooting.

Rage 2 is a big open world and shooting is orders of magnitude better than what they showed in starfield.
And i have many examples of big games having better gunplay than smaller games.

Who works on the scope and quest, story etc. Are not the same people who work for the gameplay, especially combat and gunplay, they give 2 fucks about how big the world is, shooting mechanics are shooting mechanics, bethesda simply has shitty devs when it comes to combat, scope can be a factor but after 20 years it's clear that bethesda doesn't care about making good combat, let's not excuse their sorry asses with this bullshit narrative that big games can't have great gameplay.

And don't kid yourself, shooting is gonna be a major part of starfield aswell, i'm pretty sure that you use a gun more in an action rpg 100+++ hours long than a pure 10-15 hours fps, and if not, we are extremely close, good gunplay is vital for a game like starfield except for people with such low standards that they accept everything from bethesda without making a sound.

Cyberpunk has decent gunplay and people piled on it aswell even if it is a game conceptually similar to a bethesda game, not sure why starfield deserve a pass tbh.

 

[KXVXII9X]

I do get that everyone's tastes are different, but I can't understand how you couldn't have played oblivion, fallout 3 and 4 , skyrim, morrowind and not he hyped for this game.

And you need to forget fallout 76 that wasn't Todd or the main team.

Starfield is going to be huge. I can't wait.

And if you're not a fan of those games, as theres been plenty to know if you like that kind of RPG. I would just move onto something else and not even comment, but thats just me.

At least in my case, it is BECAUSE I played some of these games to where I need something new. In the PS3/XB360 and early last gen, the systems in these games were extremely exciting and novel, but as time gone on, my taste changed and grew. I feel like these kinds of game try to be everything. In the past several years I played games with more engaging combat, games with interesting AI, games that utilized physics, games with super engaging stories, games with incredibly unique art styles, and games that completely do something different.

I don't think Starfield will be a bad game at all, and I can understand people being excited for it. I just feel at this point in time, I prefer games that are smaller in scope and focus on doing one or two things really well. It is exciting to see a game like Starfield and imagine all the possible things you will be doing, but once the game comes, I feel like it may be too familiar. Bethesda is one of the few studios I feel can make good open world titles, but I don't think Starfield will be the goliath Devs are hyping it up to be. I agree with your last point though. I just wanted to answer your first sentence.

 

[GenericUser]

I'm with you OP. I'm also hyped af. I'm normally not that much into science-fiction games, but I trust the Todd to really deliver something great with starfield. Todd Howard basically never let me down in my gaming life. The worst game he made (that I played) was Fallout 4 and that still was a really really enjoyable experience. So yeah, game looks cool, Todd is behind it, I'm really looking forward to it.

I can't believe starfield AND RE4 come out next year, almost to good to be true. A great time to be me.

 

[kyussman]

I don't think anyone could ever accuse Bethesda of lacking ambition in their games,lol.......that's kind of their main problem.......they always fall a bit short of their vision because it's just too ambitious for their talent to reach.Better to fall short than not try at all though I suppose.

 

[DeepEnigma]

its free real estate

Is that what they call ads now?

 

[Starfield]

I can confirm that Starfield will have an integrated photo-mode

 

[DenchDeckard]

At least in my case, it is BECAUSE I played some of these games to where I need something new. In the PS3/XB360 and early last gen, the systems in these games were extremely exciting and novel, but as time gone on, my taste changed and grew. I feel like these kinds of game try to be everything. In the past several years I played games with more engaging combat, games with interesting AI, games that utilized physics, games with super engaging stories, games with incredibly unique art styles, and games that completely do something different.

I don't think Starfield will be a bad game at all, and I can understand people being excited for it. I just feel at this point in time, I prefer games that are smaller in scope and focus on doing one or two things really well. It is exciting to see a game like Starfield and imagine all the possible things you will be doing, but once the game comes, I feel like it may be too familiar. Bethesda is one of the few studios I feel can make good open world titles, but I don't think Starfield will be the goliath Devs are hyping it up to be. I agree with your last point though. I just wanted to answer your first sentence.

Well, I see your point but for me...its 7 years since fallout 4 and despite some short comings I still very much enjoyed the game and its expansions. I spent hundreds of hours in it and very much enjoyed it.

For me, these games come around very rarely and I am really excited for a new one set in space.

I need a break from "modern video games" which feel to be open world collectathons with little feeling to any involvement in having your own story or the world, just following the plot.

I think starfield will be great, and I hope it will add some improvements to the bethesda formula to give us some surprises.

 

[Vasto]

Was not impressed with what I saw at the conference but after watching Tod Howard explain more about the game I am starting to see something that could be really good.

 

[johnjohn]

This is the most excited I've been in a long time, it looks and sounds like the ultimate space RPG. I can't wait to explore all those planets. One thing that really surprised me is how good the space combat looks. You can see the modular destruction in the trailer which is pretty exciting.

 

[adamsapple]

I can confirm that Starfield will have an integrated photo-mode

I can confirm I will spend at least 100 hours in Starfield.

 

[sircaw]

I can confirm I will spend at least 100 hours in Starfield.

Installing nude mods does not count

 

[STARSBarry]

Installing nude mods does not count

Honestly these just don't do it for me... you need to at least have a few small straps of leather covering only the bare essentials. Then you can call it armour.

 

[Ribi]

Push x to land... "Anywhere"

 

[JOEVIAL]

Seems like a lot of people disliked Fallout 4. I thought it was incredible! It was one of my favorite games of last gen, and my personal favorite Fallout game.

• The most detailed and vibrant world Bethesda ever created. Pack to the brim with incredible environmental storytelling. The world was actually enjoyable and rewarding to explore. Ever since Oblivion, Bethesda have been masters at this.
• Incredible sound design, incredible soundtrack, beautiful art design. A coherent package with a clear design direction.
• Great feeling gunplay, especially for a massive open world RPG. No matter what people have said, F4 really has great gunplay. Guns had impact, great/punchy sound design, great animations. It was such a significant improvement over their previous games.
• The gameplay was fun and satisfying, it was so good that I found myself not using VATS as much, especially compared to F3 and New Vegas.

The only negatives I experienced was the ending. You only had 4 or 5 choices for how the game ends, none of which are really great. Not a big deal considering I had over 200 hours of enjoyment. Voice acting for your character was not a negative for me. When I play RPG's I only play one character type, Paragon/Good, so I personally don't really care about various choices, as I typically only go with the best/good choice. I did really like the sarcastic choice in Fallout 4, gave the game a lot of character.

Fallout 4 was the smoothest, least buggy Bethesda I've played. I only experienced physics bugs and getting stuck in the world geometry a handful of times. For a 200 hundred hour experience it was inconsequential. Physics bugs are hilarious anyways, and I see them in pretty much any game that uses HAVOK. Bugs/glitches do not bother me in the slightest, the only thing that would be a REAL negative would be corrupted save files, of which I have never experienced with a Bethesda game.

 

[adamsapple]

Honestly these just don't do it for me... you need to at least have a few small straps of leather covering only the bare essentials. Then you can call it armour.

Indeed, sexy 'coverings > fully nude.

 

[KXVXII9X]

Well, I see your point but for me...its 7 years since fallout 4 and despite some short comings I still very much enjoyed the game and its expansions. I spent hundreds of hours in it and very much enjoyed it.

For me, these games come around very rarely and I am really excited for a new one set in space.

I need a break from "modern video games" which feel to be open world collectathons with little feeling to any involvement in having your own story or the world, just following the plot.

I think starfield will be great, and I hope it will add some improvements to the bethesda formula to give us some surprises.

I hope it turns out well and hope you enjoy playing it when it comes out. I'm also going to play day 1, so while I'm critical, I have the same "these kinds of games only come out so often" feeling. I hope it expands on their formula and mechanics and has a story and characters that I can really get into.

 

[Josemayuste]

Seems like a lot of people disliked Fallout 4. I thought it was incredible! It was one of my favorite games of last gen, and my personal favorite Fallout game.

• The most detailed and vibrant world Bethesda ever created. Pack to the brim with incredible environmental storytelling. The world was actually enjoyable and rewarding to explore. Ever since Oblivion, Bethesda have been masters at this.
• Incredible sound design, incredible soundtrack, beautiful art design. A coherent package with a clear design direction.
• Great feeling gunplay, especially for a massive open world RPG. No matter what people have said, F4 really has great gunplay. Guns had impact, great/punchy sound design, great animations. It was such a significant improvement over their previous games.
• The gameplay was fun and satisfying, it was so good that I found myself not using VATS as much, especially compared to F3 and New Vegas.

The only negatives I experienced was the ending. You only had 4 or 5 choices for how the game ends, none of which are really great. Not a big deal considering I had over 200 hours of enjoyment. Voice acting for your character was not a negative for me. When I play RPG's I only play one character type, Paragon/Good, so I personally don't really care about various choices, as I typically only go with the best/good choice. I did really like the sarcastic choice in Fallout 4, gave the game a lot of character.

Fallout 4 was the smoothest, least buggy Bethesda I've played. I only experienced physics bugs and getting stuck in the world geometry a handful of times. For a 200 hundred hour experience it was inconsequential. Physics bugs are hilarious anyways, and I see them in pretty much any game that uses HAVOK. Bugs/glitches do not bother me in the slightest, the only thing that would be a REAL negative would be corrupted save files, of which I have never experienced with a Bethesda game.

Agreed.

 

[Fredrik]

Indeed, sexy 'coverings > fully nude.

Yup add some tease and it can improve a design

 

[TheInfamousKira]

Considering the sheer breadth of content this game is going to have, the complex NPC structure and persistent living, breathing worlds that Bethesda brings, I can say without a doubt that this is my most hyped game and perhaps my first true glimpse into next gen. I loved The Outer Worlds and this looks to outdo it in every way imaginable. Even the combat is a huge step up, not to mention the addition of space flight and thousand planets to explore. Forget what they told ya, I think we just may be in for the game of the forever.

Verdict: Buy six times. Bethesda promises an enthralling, mind blowing, epic and awe inspiring experience where the stars are the limit! In stunning 4k and top notch sound design from the industry's leading experts, you'll feel like you're right there in the pilot's seat!

Ahem.

 

[Fermbiz]

 

[Deleted member 471617]

To preface this, im not a Bethesda guy and only played Fallout 4 for maybe a few hours before dropping it as I thought it was trash visually and mechanically. Their games look like old 90's PC games to me which is an instant turn off and Fallout 4 played as bad as it looked. Combat was better in first person than third person but that's not saying much.

Anyway, Starfield looks great but it didn't blow me away visually. The space ship combat looks better than what I was expecting. Loved the sound effects and explosions. Shooting and gameplay looked good to me while majority have said it looks bad. My biggest issue is that there's no blood or dismemberment. Expecting this game to be TEEN rated unless they just didn't add this stuff in yet.

The base and ship building seems interesting but not for me. Silent protagonist is another negative for me personally. I know this is what Bethesda normally does and majority didn't like the voiced protagonist in Fallout 4 where as for me, that was probably the only positive I had with that game. The biggest issue though is there being over 1000 planets, all procedural generated and im like, meh. I know they said afterwards that there's several hand crafted planets which my guess would be is that it's for the main story campaign which is all im probably going to do if that.

Thanks to Game Pass, this will be a nice $10 monthly rental. Out of the 5 games that im interested in from the Xbox and Bethesda Games Showcase, Starfield was #5. Whether or not I actually complete the game remains to be seen.

If anyone is wondering what my top 4 games from the showcase were, they were -

1. A Plague Tale Requiem
2. Redfall
3. Diablo IV
4. Flintlock: The Siege of Dawn

 

[DeepEnigma]

 

[Varteras]

Honestly these just don't do it for me... you need to at least have a few small straps of leather covering only the bare essentials. Then you can call it armour.

 

[Warablo]

Push x to land... "Anywhere"

This is one thing that confuses me, because he says we can land anywhere but can we actually even see what the location looks like beforehand? Does the game just load a random cell from that planet or can I actually travel around the whole planet on foot? Its kinda hard to scout out a cool place to land from space.

 

[GigaBowser]

Rage 2 is a big open world and shooting is orders of magnitude better than what they showed in starfield.
And i have many examples of big games having better gunplay than smaller games.

Who works on the scope and quest, story etc. Are not the same people who work for the gameplay, especially combat and gunplay, they give 2 fucks about how big the world is, shooting mechanics are shooting mechanics, bethesda simply has shitty devs when it comes to combat, scope can be a factor but after 20 years it's clear that bethesda doesn't care about making good combat, let's not excuse their sorry asses with this bullshit narrative that big games can't have great gameplay.

And don't kid yourself, shooting is gonna be a major part of starfield aswell, i'm pretty sure that you use a gun more in an action rpg 100+++ hours long than a pure 10-15 hours fps, and if not, we are extremely close, good gunplay is vital for a game like starfield except for people with such low standards that they accept everything from bethesda without making a sound.

Cyberpunk has decent gunplay and people piled on it aswell even if it is a game conceptually similar to a bethesda game, not sure why starfield deserve a pass tbh.

I mean, it's not about just having a big lifeless open world.

If you can't see that Bethesda's open world RPG's have way more going in them than Rage 2 or Cyberpunk I don't know what to say.

Also, I thought the gunplay in Cyberpunk was horrible, archaic and not the least bit fun. A lot of that had to do with worlds absolutely brain dead AI and lack of persistence where enemies would just randomly spawn when you were looking the other way.

 

[GymWolf]

I mean, it's not about just having a big lifeless open world.

If you can't see that Bethesda's open world RPG's have way more going in them than Rage 2 or Cyberpunk I don't know what to say.

Also, I thought the gunplay in Cyberpunk was horrible, archaic and not the least bit fun. A lot of that had to do with worlds absolutely brain dead AI and lack of persistence where enemies would just randomly spawn when you were looking the other way.

Yeah the IA was shit but i thought that hit reaction, gore and ragdoll were at least decent for an rpg.

About the gunplay, i still think that the people that makes the combat doens't give 2 fucks about the scope of the game, they are 2 different sub-teams most probably, we know that when studios search for hiring they are extremely specific about what they search, i think that who makes the open world and quests are not the same people in charge of combat\animations.

We had many open world games or just big ass games with good\great combat in the past years, i still think that bethesda need to step up his game in that department.

P.s. if you like bethesda games, you want to take a look at piranha bites games, they have terrible combat but they are a REALLY small team for the scope of their games, but when it comes to believable world and how the quest are open ended they are on the same level of bethesda if not better.

 

[GymWolf]

To preface this, im not a Bethesda guy and only played Fallout 4 for maybe a few hours before dropping it as I thought it was trash visually and mechanically. Their games look like old 90's PC games to me which is an instant turn off and Fallout 4 played as bad as it looked. Combat was better in first person than third person but that's not saying much.

Anyway, Starfield looks great but it didn't blow me away visually. The space ship combat looks better than what I was expecting. Loved the sound effects and explosions. Shooting and gameplay looked good to me while majority have said it looks bad. My biggest issue is that there's no blood or dismemberment. Expecting this game to be TEEN rated unless they just didn't add this stuff in yet.

The base and ship building seems interesting but not for me. Silent protagonist is another negative for me personally. I know this is what Bethesda normally does and majority didn't like the voiced protagonist in Fallout 4 where as for me, that was probably the only positive I had with that game. The biggest issue though is there being over 1000 planets, all procedural generated and im like, meh. I know they said afterwards that there's several hand crafted planets which my guess would be is that it's for the main story campaign which is all im probably going to do if that.

Thanks to Game Pass, this will be a nice $10 monthly rental. Out of the 5 games that im interested in from the Xbox and Bethesda Games Showcase, Starfield was #5. Whether or not I actually complete the game remains to be seen.

If anyone is wondering what my top 4 games from the showcase were, they were -

1. A Plague Tale Requiem
2. Redfall
3. Diablo IV
4. Flintlock: The Siege of Dawn

If F4 has gore i think that starfield is gonna have gore aswell, maybe they are gonna add it in the next months (it's probably low priority for them)

Shooting looked rough for the most part (with some nice shotgun kills here and there), imo it was like in alpha state, a couple of enemies didn't even had hit reactions whatsoever, the final version is gonna look better (i don't know how much better tho)

 

[TBiddy]

About the gunplay, i still think that the people that makes the combat doens't give 2 fucks about the scope of the game, they are 2 different sub-teams most probably, we know that when studios search for hiring they are extremely specific about what they search, i think that who makes the open world and quests are not the same people in charge of combat\animations.

I would hope they are separate teams. Animation and quest writing are two very different types of jobs. Why would they be working together?

 

[MiguelItUp]

I'm still on the fence, and will remain there until I see something that causes me to get hyped. I'd like to think that the outcome will be decent or more than that. Obviously, I'm hoping it'll be an insane game that delivers on all fronts, but I haven't seen anything that is unique or remarkable just yet. Aside from it being a Bethesda title.

I'm really curious to see how it will all pan out, because a lot about it is enticing or interesting, but damnit I want to get hyped.

 

[GymWolf]

I would hope they are separate teams. Animation and quest writing are two very different types of jobs. Why would they be working together?

That's my point when someone bring the scope of the game as an excuse for the subpar combat\animations (of course the final product is gonna look better).

The devs who work on the combat are not worried about how many planets or quests or lines of dialogues the game has, they just need to worry about making satisfying combat, same for the animations team.

 

[Deleted member 471617]

If F4 has gore i think that starfield is gonna have gore aswell, maybe they are gonna add it in the next months (it's probably low priority for them)

Shooting looked rough for the most part (with some nice shotgun kills here and there), imo it was like in alpha state, a couple of enemies didn't even had hit reactions whatsoever, the final version is gonna look better (i don't know how much better tho)

Hopefully they add the gore in because seeing no blood or anything looks weird to me.

Agreed. A few enemies reacted to being shot but others didn't. At this point, im just hoping for a 60FPS option.

 

[Hendrick's]

Honestly these just don't do it for me... you need to at least have a few small straps of leather covering only the bare essentials. Then you can call it armour.

 

[M.W.]

The game looks like a poor man's Star Citizen.

 

[K' Dash]

OP talking big about Starfield and using NMS screenshots lol.

 

[Spitfire098]

Bold and ambition? Okay I can see that...

Beautiful?!?

 

[GigaBowser]

The game looks like a poor man's Star Citizen.

Star Citizen has no single player component to speak of at this point and Starfield is going to have some of the most single player content in a game ever. Next year, not in a decade.

The two games are not even the same genre.

 

[BreakOut]

Looks like a fun RPG.

 

[mxbison]

The game looks like a poor man's Star Citizen.

Yeah but 99% of the world population is too poor for Star Citizen.

 

[vito_don_corleone_]

Ok. Why does this post read like an advertisement?

Perhaps it comes from "Xbox Ambassador"?

 

[sendit]

 

[vaibhavpisal]

Yeah the IA was shit but i thought that hit reaction, gore and ragdoll were at least decent for an rpg.

About the gunplay, i still think that the people that makes the combat doens't give 2 fucks about the scope of the game, they are 2 different sub-teams most probably, we know that when studios search for hiring they are extremely specific about what they search, i think that who makes the open world and quests are not the same people in charge of combat\animations.

We had many open world games or just big ass games with good\great combat in the past years, i still think that bethesda need to step up his game in that department.

P.s. if you like bethesda games, you want to take a look at piranha bites games, they have terrible combat but they are a REALLY small team for the scope of their games, but when it comes to believable world and how the quest are open ended they are on the same level of bethesda if not better.

Bethesda isn't assuming you will be going in shooting guns though.

You could be sneaking in, or developing your character by exploration, or just collecting resources to build a base there. Shooting guns is optional.

 

[anothertech]

 

[GymWolf]

Bethesda isn't assuming you will be going in shooting guns though.

You could be sneaking in, or developing your character by exploration, or just collecting resources to build a base there. Shooting guns is optional.

Being optional means jack shit, it is still an option that millions of people are gonna chose for hundreds of hours.

And if we are being honest here, even the stealth has always been mediocre in bethesda titles so it's not like gunplay is the only weaker part of the gameplay.