I think because it is a Bethesda game, i'm not TOO worried about stuff "missing" from the base game because of the mod scene. I suppose thats an odd attitude to have with a game i've paid a fair bit of money for, but I've spent more time with modded games than with the actual game in past titles.
this post was submitted on 13 Aug 2023
12 points (92.9% liked)
Starfield
2850 readers
1 users here now
Welcome to the Starfield community on Lemmy.zip!
- Follow instance rules (no spam, keep it civil and respectful, be constructive, tag NSFW)
Helpful links:
Spoiler policy:
- No spoilers in titles; if you want to share images with spoilers, preferably post the image in the body of the post. If you do make an image post, mark it NSFW.
- Add
[Spoilers]to your title if there will be untagged spoilers in the post. - Game mechanics and general discoveries (ship parts, weapons, etc) don't need a spoiler tag.
- Details about questlines and other story related content are spoilers. Use your best judgement!
Post & comment spoiler syntax:
<spoiler here>
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I usually don't feel like anything is fundamentally missing from Bethesda games, it's usually that there's so much raw potential and such a strong foundation that what you can add is essentially limitless. If Starfield lacks ocean biomes or excessive verticality I wouldn't feel it was "missing" that per se because of how much sheer content is across the rest of the game. Spread more broadly instead of deeply, something id more expect in an iterative sequel rather than a beginning for a new IP.
I have, across all Skyrim releases, probably close to 1,000 hours in it, which is a lot for me, I usually clock in at around 200-300 in other large open world games.
If Skyrim didn't have mods I feel my hours played would be closer to the 200-300 of other games like that, but due to mods it's extended that far beyond its natural life. I don't think most games are capable of sustaining my attention for that long, and in most cases, unless it's due to challenge like Monster Hunter, I don't think you can healthily expect a single player playable game to deliver 1,000 hours of content, a game that provides even a fraction of that I would consider "complete".
But a lot of people have particular definitions for what complete means based off previous games in the series or how they feel certain aspects of the mechanics or content were executed.
I agree with you on the water front, I mean there are meant to be ~1000 planets so at least a few of them have to be water planets, right?
Obviously they're not going to let you land in the sea, but it'd be nice to see some large bodies of water on at least the goldilocks planets. We did see in the Direct some NPCs lounging on a beach, so I guess there will be at least some shoreline.
Honestly, I just hope there's more to the planets in general and that there's enough handcrafted stuff (or procedural but interesting POIs) that we've just not seen. The optimist in me hopes that they haven't shown a lot because they want people to find it themselves (they, and anyone who's managed to get their hands on it to preview it, keep saying it's a massive game so fingers crossed this is the case).
I do hope you're right! As it is this game is shaping up to be a really well rounded space experience, I just hope it's not a case of "good game, but really needs a sequel to realize the ambition"
Rovers or some form of vehicle to get around on when on a planet, even if it means having a large ship module to transport it.
todd said vehicles are not in the game
Why's Todd gotta do us like that?
Sad times but thanks for confirming. Not as if there aren't tons other things to look forward to though!
That would be awesome, and another first for Bethesda if they could do it. They made a lot of enhancements to the engine, so I'm cautiously optimistic that this could be in the cards, if not on release, then possibly as DLC