this post was submitted on 02 Oct 2024
81 points (89.3% liked)
Games
32168 readers
1305 users here now
Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.
Weekly Threads:
Rules:
-
Submissions have to be related to games
-
No bigotry or harassment, be civil
-
No excessive self-promotion
-
Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts
-
Mark Spoilers and NSFW
-
No linking to piracy
More information about the community rules can be found here.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Remember when Cyberpunk fucked up their release. They knew they fucked up and owed it to the gamers. They told their board and stockholders to hold off, and that they needed to rebuild trust with their users before they could make line go up.
So they took their time, they redid many of the mechanics that people didn't like, the fixed all of the bugs, and then they released Phantom Liberty - one of the best expansions I have ever seen in gaming history. Good enough where it could have been a game on it's own.
That is how you rebuild trust with the community. You tell your stockholders to shut the fuck up and let you do what you do best. If they don't trust you to do that, then fuck em, they can sell their stock, why are they holding stock in a company they don't trust?
Post-2.0 Cyberpunk is one of the best gaming experiences I've had in a long time. You can tell it's a product of effort, and love for the project. They have taken in a considerable amount of feedback from pre-1.5.
Meanwhile, Starfield is a complete miss in just about every way imaginable, and the expansion has followed through the same footsteps. On top of that, the studio actively gaslit people who expressed disapproval, even when it was constructive criticism.
I fully expect them to say it's getting "review bombed" now, which is the current industry redefining of a term to make it come off as "It's not us, it's the stupid gamer's fault"
It's not a review bomb if it's fully deserved. If you make a bad product, you deserve a bad review, and maybe Bethesda should have thought about that ahead of time
Did they fix the driving?
That was the one and only reason I gave up the game. It was amazing from the start, and then I got in a car and it was horrible, and I stopped.
I never found that to be an issue, personally. It's not as satisfying, as it is in other games, but i enjoyed it enough
Cyberpunk was buggy, unoptimized, and kind of unfinished, but the fundamental game design was sound.
Starfield on the other hand is broken at its core. The Bethesda RPG experience just does not translate to the open worlds space map they built the game on. So they can't take the cyberpunk approach because they'd have to build an entirely different game from scratch.
I don't know why anyone decided that that engine was the right way to go. The number one thing that killed the game for me was the endless loading screens. Constantly. Whenever I started feeling immersed, a new loading screen would pop up and it ruined it for me. We have engines left and right that don't need to do this anymore, but starfield, the game that's trying to base itself to be a realistic exploration game, decided that endless loading screens were still the best way to go
even without the loading screens it would still be terrible. get a quest, go to your ship, take off, travel to other system, land, exit your ship, walk to destination, reverse all that to turn the quest in, rinse and repeat. it's just a tedious experience.
the best part of Bethesda games is just being able to wander around aimlessly in a pretty environment, likely stumbling upon little easter eggs or side quests along the way. none of that exists in Starfield.
Reading it like that, the loop sounds straight off Diablo 1 on PSX. Get quests, head to the dungeon, loading screen, wipe the floor, loading screen, wipe next floor, back to town, loading screen, turn in.
That kind of loop is not bad in itself, but Bethesda applied it to the wrong type of game.
You just described mass effect
That was one of the things that really helped with the immersion for me in Witcher 3 and even Cyberpunk. You walk into a building, house, etc and the world outside just continued and was present. I'm still quite impressed with their engine and it is a bit sad that they'll be switching to UE5 for the next Witcher.
I know! Red engine honestly is pretty great once they got the bugs worked out, I'm sad they're leaving it. It was extremely immersive, and there's definitely something about it that feels different.
Red engine was hitting its limits.
UE allows them to focus on gameplay and contents over building the core engine.
Think about cyberpunk? The engine was fine (if unoptimized) but the gameplay and contents were missing.
UE will allow them to focus on their missing skillset
Given the amount of the playable game that takes place on foot, they should have called it Field
Same with No Man's Sky. It's not everyone's cup of tea, but they buckled down and delivered on almost every promise that they failed on back at release. Not only that but every update since the game came out has been for free. Both No Man's Sky and Cyberpunk are fantastic games, and they were garbage on release. Bethesda has been doing the opposite approach and avoiding feedback from fans since Skyrim came out the first time.
Saying NMS delivered is pure copium. It has become a great game in it's own right but it's not the game we bought into at launch and never will be.
Huh? Why not? Genuine question, I never bought in at launch
At launch, for me at least, it was a cool lonely scramble to survive.
Now it's a multiplayer game with a bunch of super easy shortcuts all over the place, even outside of the multiplayer. I enjoy playing with my friends, but the solo experience is definitely worse now.
Thats not really an answer to their question, though.
Also I disagree :)
I'm sorry if you think I didn't give an answer. Because I did.
You answered a question with a good answer, just not to the question they aske. They asked about the comment - "it's not the game we bought into at launch". They were talking about how a lot of people complained that what the game was at launch wasn't what had been advertised - what people "bought into".
You seem to be explaining why it's "not the game you bought at launch" - which is definitely a valid argument too, just to something else.
I never figured a reason to even bother with multiplayer in NMS, except maybe to speed up base building. The only real challenge of the game is surviving the first hour, even on hardcore/permadeath.
Yeah, I have the permadeath achievement. Once you get off the first planet you're fine.
It used to be harder for a lot longer. Now you can just teleport anywhere you want at anytime.
Oh god, so there is absolutely nothing they can ever do to make up for it, I guess. Even after like 10+ MAJOR updates and expansions over 6+ years for free, they can't possibly ever do enough for some people, I guess.
I might need to revisit cyberpunk, I didn't know an expansion was ever released. I kind of hit max level doing mostly side quests within 4 months of launch and lost interest.
It's pretty legit. It stands on it's own, and they also improved the base game quite a bit. I'd suggest it for sure
I was having fun, despite the flaws at launch. I'm sure with improvements and more content it'll be a great one to revisit.
Phantom Liberty is a great expansion in its own right, combined with the 2.0 changes just made the entire experience better.
Oh trust me, I had a decent time playing it. I played through it 100%, did all the side stuff, did the base building - everything. But, I still felt annoyed and bored a good chunk of the time. The game was fine. But it was only fine. I wouldn't say it was revolutionary or anything Bethesda said, it was just.... fine.
They changed a lot, but in a good way. I had also spent a while away from the game and came back recently for the expansion. It's really good.
I would suggest starting a new character from scratch if you pick up the DLC. You'll really appreciate the new changes to cyberwear that way.
I would definitely need a new character, nothing worse than picking up an old save and having zero clue about what's going on in game. I think I'll put that on my list, I really did enjoy the game at the time I played it, and I definitely got 100 hours playtime from it.
I've had it sitting in my library, maybe it's finally time to play it. Which is the better voice actor to pick, dude or chick?
I prefer the male voice but the female voice is more emotive. Plus the female avatar gets a nice story with Judy.
I'm the opposite. I prefer the fem VA, but I like Panam just a bit more than Judy.
It's REALLY good.
I’m waiting for the ultimate edition that will include everything here
basically the major points of change was launch, then cyberpunk edgerunners clothing dlc patch (1.0 but bigs fixed). 2.0 rewrote some of the games mechanics that dropped before the expansion. and then the expansion was released (which added new endings)
I mean, it all hinged in the fact that under all those glitches and bugged mechanics CDPR still had a nice game. Starfield can't be salvaged cuz the core game is just mediocre shit.
I wanna say it's a failed IP at this point, but who knows how many copies sold. What is sure is it doesn't deserve any more of my time. I have the DLC but won't reinstall that garbage
It certainly sold a lot. Bethesda once claimed to have over 10 million players across all platforms. Even if we assume half of those were using gamepass, that's still 5 million sales.
Of course, if you compare it to Fallout 4's first 6 months, with reported 12 million sales on day-one, that's a significant letdown.
Starfield is a very real "could have been", if only
[huge list of changes]happened.The difference is, there is no fixing Starfield, it is rotten to the core. You would have to re-do most of the story elements and writing, and the disjointed, empty world. On top of that you'd have to fix the bugs and technical limitations like the constant loading screens. At this point you would be throwing out most of the game and basically starting from scratch with a few systems done, like the ship building and possibly gunplay.
I think cyberpunk never became what many wanted, but if you let go of your expectations, it is a good game.
Funny thing is that shipbuilding also felt annoying to me. There were so many arbitrary restrictions that I felt like I couldn't actually make the ship I wanted, it always felt the same
I dislike the narrative that something is "unfixable", everything is fixable if there is a will to do so.
I don't know why game developers seem to have inhibitions of changing the game too much after release. For instance reworking and extending the main story in a game seems to be a big red line for them.
For instance I would have wished in Cyberpunk 2077 to actually play Vs introduction into Night City and the individual fixers myself, instead of just watching a cut scene. A DLC could have extended the start of the game a bit.
The same for Starfield, they could extend and improve the main story, characters and locations in an update, but seem hesitant to do so. Something like directors cut, that adds cut content as well as tons of side quests into the game.
If people still want to play the original game, they can make the extended story optional, like sleecting what version you want to play at the game start.
For bugs, they could work together with the community and the "unofficial patch" and engine fixer modders, instead just ignoring them. In Skyrim SSE for instance they still had many of the same bugs that Oldrim had and where fixed by thr community.
Bethesda could improve, and even fix their games, if they would decide to do so. Their DLC just doesn't seem to be worth what they ask for, it could have been just part of a free update, so that some more people buy the base game.
I just ment you'd have to cut so much that at that point it would basically be a new game. I'm thinking a bit more from the dev point of view. Like an old rusted-to-hell car, everything is fixable. The question is cost: if you have to replace or re-fabricate every piece than you're better off starting from scratch.
I'm the case of Starfield, changing the core story, characters, missions, and theme is basically the same as replacing the entire car body.
I don't think they can.
I have a strong suspicion that truly talented writers who are able to build memorable stories in great worlds are few and far between, and those that are willing to work in the games industry of today are as rare as hen's teeth. Most companies, including Bethesda, simply don't have the talent at hand to fix their mess, or there wouldn't be a mess in the first place. The truth is probably somewhere between this, and the ol' "eh, good enough".
I just finished playing it for the first time and I was blown away right from the start! Guess I'm glad I waited for the polish, but the world design, voice acting and overall storyline was absolutely fantastic. I couldn't help feel bad for all the artists that clearly put a lot of love in to the world only to be overshadowed by bugs and poor implementation.
I'm still mad the monowire doesn't work how it was said it would and that the cops can't be bribed and shit like that. It's a great game now and a lot of fun to play but I won't ever trust another game company again like I did with them after they made witcher 3.
I didn't play it at the time because of the bugs, but from what I saw the good parts of Cyberpunk were already present. Stuff like storytelling, interesting characters etc.
Starfield has none of that.
... And still could bit fix that some keys are hardcoded. But I agree, with expansion the game was quite enjoyable.