starfield, are you excited?

[05032-Mendicant-Bias]

8 hours ago, NobleGamer said:

I am excited for Starfield...to eventually get heavily discounted or get bundled with other games

 

In more ways than one I expected the game to be Fallout 4 in space, and reviews seem to suggest its something like that. So none of these complaints on day 1 surprise me:

• Graphical performance and/or quality in spite of moderate or even high end hardware
• Unoptimized CPU usage that prevents 100% usage even when performance is CPU bound
• Significant number of loading animations for even the smallest indoor building
• Parts of the story are a mixed bag
• Side quests and planets off the beaten path are dull or samey (remember Radient Quests?)

The negatives pointed by the reviews I think are fair but overemphatized (except for the performance complaints), and I think the reviews are underselling the positive points of Starfield.

E.g. In the phrase: "Fallout 4 but in Space", the "in Space" part really is doing a lot of work here! Imagine a Star Citizen, but story rich and bug free, to give you my impression of Starfield achivements here.

Also, bethesda has released a game that is mostly bug free, which to me, is astonishing.

27 minutes ago, Stahlmann said:

But No Man's Sky has had another rise in players, since people are now excited for open-world space games again and No Man's Sky is an actually good one

I play both, and in my opinion the only system that works better in NMS than in Starfield is the ability to fly your ship from space, to the atmosphere and land (aka few loading screens). Performance is also better in NMS. In everything else, I feel confident in saying that Starfield far exceed NMS. E.g. I wanted the ability to customize the modules of my NMS ship forever, and Starfield delivers just that!

If I had a game to play for 15 hours or less, I think I would pick No Man's Sky. it's quicker to get into, and the first hours are great fun jumping planets, getting a freighter, getting frigates, getting ships, collecting resources and explore. NMS plateau beacuse it's all grind and procedural generation after that. There is no functional difference between a C class fighter and an S class fighter with full complement of S class upgrades and a squadron of four S class pilots. You just munch through pirate ships and sentinels faster. When you finish the Atlas and reach the center of the galaxy, you have "won" and after that its grind. Which is fun, but it's all the same. I still haven't found enough "freighter bulkheads" to fully kit out my freighter. To get maybe a dozen more inventory slots.

For more than 15h, I'd pick Starfield, it's slower to start, but it's just a much bigger game with a huge numbers of handcrafted NPCs and quests. And when you are done, you can grind the procedurally generated content as well.

 

A closer comparison to Starfield is Star Citizen, but for me, Starfield wins hands down. Star Citizen has no ship customization and you need to make your own fun. and Starfield is story rich and is finished.

[Stahlmann]

I looked forward to it, but i'll not buy it for at least another half year. This game is another example why even launch day reviews are practically worthless. Everyone loved the game at first, but a few days later it quickly died down after people found out it's lacking in so many areas. Everyone who is pre-ordering nowadays is just adding to this fire.

 

Give modders some more time and they'll fix the game eventually. (until Bethesda releases a small hotfix that completely breaks all mods)

 

But No Man's Sky has had another rise in players, since people are now excited for open-world space games again and No Man's Sky is an actually good one. I didn't like it when i tried it a year ago, but i might give it another shot. A lot of people say the tutorial is dull, but the open game is amazing.

[mMontana]

No Men's Sky sucked a lot for the first year. Really a lot. Praise to Hello Games for fixing and expanding the game without asking more money.

I won't bet on the same behaviour from Bethesda.

[Avocado Diaboli]

To celebrate the launch of Starfield, I finally started playing The Outer Worlds. Because I know that for everything Bethesda can churn out, theres a better alternative made by Obsidian.

[Jorgemeister]

First 3 hours and so far so good, even performance wise with my R5 5800x and RX 6800XT at 3440x1440 it feels great, Im not sure if the stupid windows xbox app has a way to display fps, I will look for it.

 

I hate the space dogfights, but that might be just me, hated them in NMS as well, besides that it all feels great so far, I thought I was gonna hate the shooter aspect of it but it feels better than FO4.

 

[ewitte]

12 hours ago, Silviecat44 said:

I am also waiting for a good sale. why waste $100 when you can wait for it to be $40 and with bugfixes?

This is free since I have gamepass but typically I wait for things to be available under $30.  Usually, possible the first year (second if it came out really late in the year) during Steam/Epic winter sales.

[Holmes108]

29 minutes ago, Jorgemeister said:

First 3 hours and so far so good, even performance wise with my R5 5800x and RX 6800XT at 3440x1440 it feels great, Im not sure if the stupid windows xbox app has a way to display fps, I will look for it.

 

I hate the space dogfights, but that might be just me, hated them in NMS as well, besides that it all feels great so far, I thought I was gonna hate the shooter aspect of it but it feels better than FO4.

 

 

Xbox thing does have a counter. There's a performance widget. 

 

I don't mind the dogfighting, but then in general I'm not a fan of them, so if I like it, maybe that's not a good thing, lol. 

 

One thing I didn't like, was controlling the ship in fights with the mouse. I can't put my finger on why that is with this game, but it was enough to make me switch to controller for that reason alone, which surprised me. 

 

[Jorgemeister]

2 hours ago, Holmes108 said:

 

Xbox thing does have a counter. There's a performance widget. 

 

I don't mind the dogfighting, but then in general I'm not a fan of them, so if I like it, maybe that's not a good thing, lol. 

 

One thing I didn't like, was controlling the ship in fights with the mouse. I can't put my finger on why that is with this game, but it was enough to make me switch to controller for that reason alone, which surprised me. 

 

Ill check on that, or use the one on the AMD software.

 

I hadnt thought of that, good idea. Controller for ship and keyboard for when im out of it.

 

9 hours ago, 05032-Mendicant-Bias said:

 

I play both, and in my opinion the only system that works better in NMS than in Starfield is the ability to fly your ship from space, to the atmosphere and land (aka few loading screens). Performance is also better in NMS. In everything else, I feel confident in saying that Starfield far exceed NMS. E.g. I wanted the ability to customize the modules of my NMS ship forever, and Starfield delivers just that!

 

The travel system was unexpected for me in Starfield but I prefer some aspects of it, rushing from 1 planet to another in NMS isnt very fun, its several minutes of just flying to get there even at max speed, which is boring, but the ability to fly the ship on the planets and land whenever you want is very useful to explore, not sure if Starfield has it, so far I've only landed in 1 planet and it felt scripted. 

 

 

[Middcore]

5 minutes ago, Jorgemeister said:

but the ability to fly the ship on the planets and land whenever you want is very useful to explore, not sure if Starfield has it, so far I've only landed in 1 planet and it felt scripted. 

 

You can pick anyplace on a planet to land, but there might not be much there to see when you do. 

[Holmes108]

33 minutes ago, Jorgemeister said:

I hadnt thought of that, good idea. Controller for ship and keyboard for when im out of it.

 

 

The game does handle the hot swapping of controls pretty well too.

 

I haven't fully decided on a control scheme yet. I like flying with the controller... but trying to select a specific item when looking at a table full of items can be a nightmare without the mouse.

[Jorgemeister]

1 hour ago, Holmes108 said:

 

The game does handle the hot swapping of controls pretty well too.

 

I haven't fully decided on a control scheme yet. I like flying with the controller... but trying to select a specific item when looking at a table full of items can be a nightmare without the mouse.

I have a very old logitech joystick, perhaps I can give it some use

[ARandomPerson]

On 9/6/2023 at 5:31 PM, ARandomPerson said:

. I'll give an update on the framerate with it off.

With Fsr off, I saw, according to AMD, around 53 fps. Note for my fps: the dips are when the planet is being rendered. When you are inside doing a shootout, the framerate being reported was as much as my Monitor, which is 75 fps and never goes lower, meaning it is much higher than reported. Or it is more stable of a framerate. Overall for me, F.S.R. on or off was very playable.