Well, I mean, I would have launched it first (as an AAA game), but I'm no game developer. 🤷 And neither are they, from the looks of it. Good at perpetually raking in money for himself and his family, though!

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] GlitterInfection@lemmy.world 9 points 8 months ago (2 children)

This is what killed Starfield for me. My character is a down on his luck diplomat who cares for his retiring parents and has to take up a mining job...

Nope, murder hobo. Literally in the tutorial.

[–] Hadriscus@lemm.ee 3 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I have to agree. Games tend to resort to violence immediately now, no need for justification. I didn't imagine Starfield would be a shooter at all in fact. Ultimately it was almost exclusively shooting

[–] GlitterInfection@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago

And a terrible one!

[–] RealFknNito@lemmy.world -2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I get the desire to compare the two games but Starfield tried too hard to color inside the lines by giving a story and lore while simultaneously trying to make an open ended sandbox which gave us neither. There's a LARPing town of cowboys with dirt roads existing a few minutes from a hyper advanced planet with platinum roads and somehow they haven't made contact? The cowboys haven't progressed their dirt and wood town despite being in spitting distance of a planet of machines that could fabricate advanced tools in seconds?

Star Citizen seems to take the Dark Souls approach of light narrative, heavy world building, "go learn the world by experiencing it."

[–] GlitterInfection@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I'm not sure why you're getting downvoted here...

But I would honestly say that the only things I liked about Starfield are the things you're kind of dismissing. The story and ambiance pieces worked really well, and I ONLY wanted that part.

Every time I had to do anything space travel, combat, space combat, or inventory management, I died inside.

I also felt like the cities and locations were tiny and didn't feel lived in or real. Basically the immersiveness of the game which thrives on immersion was not handled well so I was left with a terrible shooter.

[–] RealFknNito@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Well the story held the game back because the game wanted to be more open than than the story allowed and vice versa where the game held the story back because a lot of areas were underdeveloped or don't make sense with where they are for the sake of the story they wanted to tell. It felt like two conflicting ideas at the core which ended up with what we have.

Why are cowboys within trading distance of a future tech planet? How have they not interacted to a point where they don't need dirt roads? The only answer seems to be for the sake of being neat and is baffling. Empty planets being explained as being on purpose to 'get more joy out of discovering ones with things on it' and just.. it was astoundingly average and competes for the worst Bethesda game against 76.

Bethesda excels at world building and it was disastrous to watch them fail at that.

[–] GlitterInfection@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Yup. I agree with all of that. It was very disjointed at every stage.

[–] RealFknNito@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago

Then let us raise our glasses in agreement and hope Cloud Imperium can make Star Citizen as well as they hoped.