Is Starfield going to be as good as that Trailer or is it all smoke and mirrors?

[redditrefugee1]

Honestly, the trailer looks pretty amazing, and while there is a little bit of cringe in there, I was impressed by the artwork and visuals. 

 

Are we looking at another overhyped disaster like 76? Or could this legit be as good as advertised? Thoughts? 

[Zando_]

No, it probably won't be as good as the trailer. Not sure that it matters, all I want is Fallout 4 in space and it looks like that + some extra so I'll be happy. Same as how Cyberpunk 2077 wasn't anywhere near the hype, but I wasn't expecting it to be so I enjoyed my couple playthroughs, and still go back to it every now and then. Fallout 76 I joined late, it's actually pretty good now (I got a bit over 200 hours out of it before starting to get bored). I doubt Starfield can possibly be as bad as launch 76 was, as the main issue there was lack of NPCs/content to do, and Starfield is already full of those. 

[Holmes108]

While I know that Bethesda games are known for being buggy, I should preface that I think pretty much all of their big games have been masterpieces. Even on launch day, I'd give the Elder scrolls and fallout games great scores, and have never had a game breaking bug, or any bugs that hindered my enjoyment in a meaningful way. So, fanboy alert, I guess. (Elder Scrolls is probably my favorite series of all videogames).

 

All that being said, yeah, I think it'll be at least as well received as Oblivion, or Skyrim, or the Fallouts. People maybe need to check their expectation on the fun of exploring "1000 planets" however....

 

I'm hoping the universe will still be fun to explore, and going to even a barren resource world will still be enjoyable for people like me, who play survival/resource gathering games, and don't mind a grind. But the planets will NOT all be equally compelling. But that's all gravy to me. If I can get an RPG story at least on par with, say, a Skyrim, and an equal amount of open exploration content as those previous games, then it's still going to be a fantastic game. 

 

Add on to that the ship stuff, and it's hard to imagine not getting 100+hours at least. If we're lucky, it's 1000's of hours and has the longevity of Skyrim. 

 

Anything is possible. It could bomb. But I see no reason to lean that way with the track record, personally. (again, coming from someone who thinks their track record is excellent).

 

So TL;DR: At minimum, it's Skyrim/Fallout in space with some really cool new ship stuff. And that's fine by me! At best, it's going to be an absolute epic game changer!

 

Edit: Oh, Zando just reminded me about Fallout 76.... I never played that. But I have much more faith in them for single player games.

[Holmes108]

4 minutes ago, Zando_ said:

No, it probably won't be as good as the trailer. Not sure that it matters, all I want is Fallout 4 in space and it looks like that + some extra so I'll be happy. Same as how Cyberpunk 2077 wasn't anywhere near the hype, but I wasn't expecting it to be so I enjoyed my couple playthroughs, and still go back to it every now and then. Fallout 76 I joined late, it's actually pretty good now (I got a bit over 200 hours out of it before starting to get bored). I doubt Starfield can possibly be as bad as launch 76 was, as the main issue there was lack of NPCs/content to do, and Starfield is already full of those. 

 

Yep, your first sentence summed up my view much more succinctly than my wordy post.

[Levent]

I remember when Skyrim came out, it had so many weird bugs that it was actually fun to attempt to break the game. I doubt things have changed since then lol.

[Fullmental]

I don't expect miracles, but I expect it'll be much more polished than F76 or CP2077 were. Bethesda has access to Microsoft's resources for QA and fine tuning, and they've said multiple times that they have more people working on QA for this game than ever before. It'll likely be a nice, playable experience with some bugs, but very few things truly broken in a way that makes the game unplayable. Probably not perfect like the trailer but what ever is?

[Shimejii]

Its Bethesda, over hyped under delivered has been their thing. Buggy games because most of the time their physics are tied to something like Framerate, among other issues.

 

Never trust Bethesda to make a good game, it may eventually get there but its going to take a LOT of patching and fixes. 

 

If its like No mans sky but more like fallout, its probably going to fail horribly, since that will be a very boring game and offers nothing new to experince.

 

  What these dev companies generally fail to do is make a game thats fun and interesting without the idea of monetizing the absolute shit out of it now, everything has DLC or mini packs or other stuff you may want or need. I have a feeling that they may do that with this game.

 

I really just wish some of the devs on twitter with just shut their mouth about how "Its the least buggy game bethesda ever made!" Because you know that kind of statement is going to bite you in the ass when everything from their history has shown they do not release games without major bugs that cause issues. 

[Zando_]

2 minutes ago, Holmes108 said:

At minimum, it's Skyrim/Fallout in space with some really cool new ship stuff. And that's fine by me! At best, it's going to be an absolute epic game changer!

Just now, Holmes108 said:

Yep, your first sentence summed up my view much more succinctly than my wordy post.

I think the sentence above is a better sum-up. At worst it's more of what I already liked!

3 minutes ago, Holmes108 said:

Edit: Oh, Zando just reminded me about Fallout 76.... I never played that. But I have much more faith in them for single player games.

If you get it on sale it's worth playing, the intro quests should keep you occupied for... around 60+ hours if you mix in some of the events to level up. I've averaged 1 level an hour of playtime, lv 60 is when you can use everything, and I think I started running out of quests and new places to go at around level 100 as I waited to do a lot if them till after 60. You can get a good bit out of it before it becomes a basically co-op only fallout game, and there's a bunch of stuff to experiment with and a usually solid community so it can go for a good bit after that. Has the best worldspace out of any Fallout game so far too, just for sheer beauty + all the neat places to visit. 

[Holmes108]

1 minute ago, Shimejii said:

 

 

  ...What these dev companies generally fail to do is make a game thats fun and interesting without the idea of monetizing the absolute shit out of it now, everything has DLC or mini packs or other stuff you may want or need. I have a feeling that they may do that with this game.

 

Really? I'd never put it past a dev, but I don't see any sign of that whatsoever. Particularly in a single player only game, that seems to have stuck to it's vision through an enormously long development process. The long dev time, while frustrating for fans/customers, is really very welcome imo, and a very good sign. 

 

There are other games, like Redfall, where there are many more problematic signs of what happened during development. But I don't get that at all from this. Fingers crossed.

[Holmes108]

1 minute ago, Zando_ said:

If you get it on sale it's worth playing, the intro quests should keep you occupied for... around 60+ hours if you mix in some of the events to level up. I've averaged 1 level an hour of playtime, lv 60 is when you can use everything, and I think I started running out of quests and new places to go at around level 100 as I waited to do a lot if them till after 60. You can get a good bit out of it before it becomes a basically co-op only fallout game, and there's a bunch of stuff to experiment with and a usually solid community so it can go for a good bit after that. Has the best worldspace out of any Fallout game so far too, just for sheer beauty + all the neat places to visit. 

 

That's good to hear about 76. I have heard that it's worth revisiting over time now. I'll have to check it out. 

[Strobel]

Looks gash.

[Tan3l6]

I'm waiting for it. But I do wonder if RTX 3070 is good enough. Good enough for 60+ frames per second constantly.

[hollyh88]

20 hours ago, Zando_ said:

No, it probably won't be as good as the trailer. Not sure that it matters, all I want is Fallout 4 in space and it looks like that + some extra so I'll be happy. Same as how Cyberpunk 2077 wasn't anywhere near the hype, but I wasn't expecting it to be so I enjoyed my couple playthroughs, and still go back to it every now and then. Fallout 76 I joined late, it's actually pretty good now (I got a bit over 200 hours out of it before starting to get bored). I doubt Starfield can possibly be as bad as launch 76 was, as the main issue there was lack of NPCs/content to do, and Starfield is already full of those. 

I think the difference between cyberpunk and starfield is that starfield was delayed massively and you can see the massive improvements over the last showcase. And they showed a lot. Cyberpunk didn't. And was very secretive. Starfield is not so much. 

[hollyh88]

I hope it will be as good as was shown but I think it will be like so. The delays were needed and there is a drastic difference in fidelity and gameplay between last showcase and now. 

 

Will it have bugs? Probably it's a big game. But as long as they are the funny Bethesda bugs and not the game breaking bugs It ain't that bad.

 

I just hope it will be 60+ fps on pc and not capped to 60. That's my main "worry". That they learned and don't tie the ingame physics on the framerate.

[ExInferis]

I am excited for this game and a dead-cert day 1 purchase. However, here is my main concern as best as I can convey it. You can't tell from a trailer. I love the Elder Scrolls and Fallout games. A huge part of their charm for me is the open world where you set off with some goal or objective in mind, and 4 hours later you have done none of that, yet you have had a blast and was that really 4 hours?!  The open world is so rich and full of distractions no play session goes as you planned it.  

 

Then I recently played a game from Obsidian Entertainment, the people who were contracted to bring us Fallout New Vegas. The game is called The Outer Worlds. It is, essentially, Fallout in space. It has all the DNA of the Fallout games, but you move between planets in a ship. I went off the boil on it really quickly and I don’t think I broke through the 100 hour barrier that I personally use as the “success” metric for a single player RPG campaign.   

 

It was down to the planet-hopping format. You could not pilot the ship, and much like the Mass Effect games you chose your destination from a star map then watched a canned animation of the journey and landing. Then you got out of your ship and walked through the same dock/space station/outpost over, and over, and over again. You would look where you needed to go, and roll your eyes as you knew how the next 30 minutes would go as you waded through the same NPC threats on that same main road out of town that you have battled a dozen times.   

 

In record time I was using fast travel where I hated doing that on Fallout3/4/NV and Skyrim. That completely killed the exploration vibe and then it became an on-rails game that even the witty NPC dialogue couldn’t distract from. Now I viewed fast travel as a way to skip the tedium and that in turn nixed the exploration willingness. I just wanted the mission ticked off as fast as possible.    

 

So my main concern with people expecting “Fallout in Space” is that there is a similar format to The Outer Worlds. The travelling which attempts to create a sense of scale may end up actually making the game world feel smaller and add repetition. It also may limit exploration as you will likely naturally circle the area you landed in (which are fixed?) knowing you have to return to it at some point, which may also encourage the use of fast-travel. I never felt like I had a home in Fallout or Skyrim. Yes I had a homestead of sorts, but I didn’t live there. It was merely a dumping ground for loot I would never use or consider again. I just wandered about and stuff happened.

 

They say over 1000 worlds in Starfield, but from the deep dive video you can see that each system is 1 or 2 main worlds, then half a dozen mining resource moons. Is that going to turn into a Mass Effect 2 mini-game grind for resources? Except you have an extra getting in/out of your ship animation first? I have never played No Man’s Sky but I have seen the mining mechanics. Did anybody who played that feel like it was a mile wide but an inch deep with this stuff? That game has billions of worlds.    

 

Ship customisation. I hope they flesh this out properly. What I mean by that is I was excited for Fallout 4’s base-building. I spent an incredible amount of time building the most formidable base, certain the game was building up to some epic showdown where my defenses would be put to the test. I was giddy with anticipation of either a prolonged siege or maybe a Horde-like wave system with down-time for repairs. They put so much effort into the customisation I felt certain it was going to be a big part of the story. Likely the climactic big boss fight.       

 

Then nothing happened. Aside from some mole rat thing that would occasionally wander too close to an auto turret, my work never once got tested. No final stand mission. Nothing. Just some dude endlessly wandering up to me to tell me I should be somewhere else. So in my next Bethesda game of Fallout 76, my base was a hut on a stick with a chest for loot and a bed. That was it. No point in any more outside of creative zeal.    

 

Will these ship customisation modules do anything other than change your take-off & landing animations? Do the large ones add crew and loot space, but limit range and increase fuel burn rate? Do you get larger docking fees if you rock up with a Star Destroyer instead of a shuttle? Does your ship ever get interdiction events where an internal design for repelling borders would be useful? Does your NPC crew need to move quickly between crew quarters and duty stations? Would a large cargo bay allow for a tank/buggy/APC for speedier planet exploration? Or is it just an aesthetic lego set for Photo Mode submissions? Time will tell.   

 

Knowing what I know about how The Outer Worlds went, I will be banning myself from fast travel. As with the previous Fallout and Skyrim adventures, I will limit that purely for end-game larking about. Really hoping Starfield doesn’t wear me down on this and that planetary exploration is fleshed out more than just a few hundred meters either side of the main road out of a city.    

 

Fingers crossed. 

[DeerDK]

Probably can't live up to the hype and I sounds like it will contain a lot of bloat and padding. 

BUT

Damn I'm looking forward to it. 

My biggest gripe basted on the trailers is that the NPCs look a bit dead in the eyes. Cyberpunk may have spoiled me at bit there. 

We will see. 

Unless it falls apart at launch I'm gonna play the snot out of it. 

 

@LMGcommunitycan you guys/gals poke Dan and Luke to join in the discussion when the game comes out. They both sounded quite thrilled in the last WAN show 

[RejZoR]

Looks really impressive, but the vastness of it is worrying me. No Man's Sky game has similar issue, it's just so much so far that I'll never finish it or get far. Some like grind and crafting, I don't mind it in small doses but not like NMS where it's entire focus. I like games like Deus Ex where game gives you tons of options how to handle situation and you can evolve and adapt to your play style, but it's always "going forward". It's what I call "semi linear games". The issue I had with every single The Elder Scrolls game is that I've been amazed by beautiful world and all the stuff you can explore outside of main story to a point I either wandered off the main story so far away I got bored over time and never finished or there was a game breaking bug that prevented me from continuing main story (as in Skyrim's case) in which case I won't drop another 1500 hours into the game just to finish it by playing it again. I've already spent that much time with it, it's enough.

 

Starfield has a different appeal tho and while I like swords, bows and magic, jetpacks and guns are still the stuff for me. And especially exploring derelict space ships, that's my jam. It's suspenseful and cool and I'd like to do that a lot. The Outer Worlds kinda came around as a surprise and I loved that game. It's Elder Scrolls in space with mix of Deus Ex in there and it worked really well. And it was again relatively straight forward game and the space travel wasn't overwhelming or annoying. And that's what worries me here in Starfield. And seeing how complex the game is and who makes it (Bethesda) I worry some game breaking bug will get me stuck and I'll never actually finish it.

 

I'm optimistic and excited, heard about it, but never really paid much attention until AngryJoy made a recap of the official announcement and showcase not long ago. And it impressed me. But again, I'm worried a bit. We'll see, the fall will be interesting.

[xAcid9]

It use Creation Engine, it will be bug city at launch imo.

[Stahlmann]

It's bethesda and they're using the same engine they've been using since Skyrim. It will be a bugfest at launch.

 

However, the engine is great when it comes to mod support and in 6 months or so after launch most bugs will be fixed by the modding community. It's probably one of the best game engines out there when it comes to modding.

[emothxughts]

It's a single-player BGS game, so there will be mods for it, like Skyrim and Fallout 4. Looking forward not so much to the vanilla game as what modders will do with the game.

[DeerDK]

Looking forward for someone to mod in the dragons from Skyrim. BUT IN SPACE