I really appreciate them walking right up to the line of understanding (even going so far as to point out that it’s sweatshop work) and then blowing right past it to say the devs hate your guts. Great work guys!
this post was submitted on 11 Sep 2023
82 points (85.3% 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 mean, they don't "hate your guts", but the people making the choices don't give a shit about your feelings as long as you've bought the game. The devs, who aren't making those choices, probably want to make the best game, but they likely prioritise "having food" over "Making the best game ever".
Not enough people realize this when they say things like "wtf were the devs thinking", etc. The actual developers, meaning the people writing the code, want to make the product (whatever it may be) the best it possibly can be. Things get messed up for a variety of reasons, but it's usually not the developers fault.
The people making choices are not the devs!
Correct. I guess that could be clearer, now that I reread my post. Edited.
4chan discovers outsourcing
Counterpoint: piracy
Piracy is a moral imperative.
If I had a penny for every "X game is shit" post on 4chan
Is it really that broken?
As soon as they opened the post with "why it turned out so awful" I just discounted everything else. We're not even playing the same game. You could argue that there are parts of it that are designed and executed in such a way that some gamers won't enjoy it, e.g. lots of loading screens, it's not a true space sim, performance is lacking, etc.
But there's tons of content and variety, the game looks nice, the game plays well both on foot and in the starships (of course the shooting isn't Destiny, and the ship combat isn't elite dangerous, but it's good), it's an enjoyable product in its own right that is buggy, sure, but not brokenly so.
That being said this numerically huge involvement of multiple studios has been a thing in AAA development for a decade or more now, and it doesn't really mean the game is bad on its own. I do think it's a problem with scale and visual fidelity of these games hitting a point where this sort of outsourced collaboration is necessary to hit the development time frames these companies expect, but that's just a sign that they should scale down and get more humble and "locally grown", though we all know capitalism won't abide by that and neither will the paying average gamer who can still somehow look at modern AAA titles and say they look bland or all right at times even though the fidelity is absolutely nuts.
Thank you
No, it's fairly unbroken
Yeah I think Cyberpunk raised the bar for broken launches. Starfield runs and the only bugs I’ve seen are some wacky NPC interactions and ships clipping through people:
Outside of a crash when placing large objects in the outpost once, I haven't had any real issues. In the first combat mission I had an enemy sticking through the ceiling and spotting me, but that's really it
Incredibly well put together for a Bethesda game at launch.
No worse than any other BRPG at launch. A lot of people are still let down for other reasons.
ive played nearly all Bethesda games at launch. This one has the worst aesthetical feel. Inconsistent npc facial animations. All the apparel and spacesuits are ugly as heck.
Id argue 4chan is right here. Outsourcing has its downsides in design.
Btw. If you use the mod to turn off color filters the game starts to feel very dark, but with filters even shadows are colored. Inconsistent outcomes fixed with filters? To make it look more uniform around a planet etc. I do know about atmosphere colors, but atmosphere doesn't color the darkness.
It's funny you should say it, because I had the same first impression. "How did you make it drearier than several actual nuclear post-apocalyptic wastelands??"
From what I understand they wanted the game to feel "cinematic" so they choose themes for each area to give you a specific feeling. I too am not thrilled with reddish shadows because Bethesda decided this moon should be reddish even though it's all grey...
Maybe no one at Bethesda has ever looked at the moon?
For a bethesda game on launch it's relatively stable on launch, main issues for a lot of people are the performance and how lifeless the world feels.
It's on 4chins, so it's safe to assume the opposite of whatever they say is closer to the truth than what they posted.
So far, I've only really experienced one real bug (groundpounder mission suuuucks), and my only other complaint I have (frequent CTDs) is probably because I'm way under the min spec running an RX 570. Considering this is a Bethesda game, it's surprisingly not that buggy.
It's because creating more complex system requires more than a linear increase in development and then the development system has to also be more complex because it requires more people and communication between them gets harder. Everything grows exponentially.
I just think that fundamentally, the games we imagine and are promised that should be possible with the processing power we have today is just impossible to create because the systems are just too complex(costs too many hours of skilled labor, impossible to earn back).
AAA games mostly seem like prettier versions of games from late 200x's. Moment to moment everything is higher fidelity but the gameplay systems are just the same.
(I haven't played the game but mostly because Skyrim was also mostly boring to me because the gameplay systems were actually really shallow and I didn't care about the "wow big open world" anymore because its not a novelty anymore)
Of all the things to get upset about, the game leveraged too many studios to produce too many assets is a weird one.
Luckily for that poster there's a bunch of indie games where the end credit screen is barely one full page. He has lots of people he can support instead of going with Bethesda and their contracted studios.
I think it's more they're upset about exploiting sweatshop labor though...?
4chan is all about blaming bad stuff in computers to 'underpaid indian laborers who barely know how to copypaste'. It's not about the exploitation they're upset about.
I'll wait for what hbomberguy says about Starfield and that'll be my opinion.
Given this is a bethesda game, I look forward to playing it a year from now, when the modding community has perfected and expanded it. I'm sure it'll be truly awesome by then, it'll run great on my older pc, and thanks to the community I'll have years of fun. Just like happened with the newer non-online Fallout games and Skyrim.
Bethesda makes diamond tier games. They just need polishing.
Thank you to those who pre-ordered or bought on day 1, for subsidising us patient gamers so we can have thousands of hours of fun for less than the price of a trip to McDonalds.
My boy Gmanlives got called out? Lol. 4Chan is awful. If you've ever posted there, you opinions are invalid.