Starfield! Spaaaaaaace...ladders.

[SpookyFX]

Well, in all honesty that was to be expected. We want better and bigger games all the time and we don't want to pay more for them. Companies are scrambling to find ways to make as much as they can from their products without alienating their customer base. It's a complicated situation to say the least. Sure we can reduce it to greedy investors and companies execs but that's only part of the truth.

Right, but I did not really mean to imply it was greed, no I was only saying it was a shift in focus. Game companies are allowed to decide their focus is on money, I am not a socialist's, capitalism works IF there is true competition and the customers are informed and not complacent. That is why I always support laws that enforce the truth in advertising (like product labels and material data sheets) even though I am a more a libertarian in all other things. Not regulations, just give me proper info and then let me decide which companies get to stay in business with the power of my wallet.

I still think Todd has passion for making games (especially this space game as he has wanted to make this for over 20 years). He also has a mortgage, but Starfield will have to be way better than Fallout 76.

 

[GrimReaper801]

Right, but I did not really mean to imply it was greed, no I was only saying it was a shift in focus. Game companies are allowed to decide their focus is on money, I am not a socialist's, capitalism works IF there is true competition and the customers are informed and not complacent. That is why I always support laws that enforce the truth in advertising (like product labels and material data sheets) even though I am a more a libertarian in all other things.

I didn't imply you said it was greed. It's just a rather popular argument. Just look at CP2077 as one recent example. So many claim it was released due to investors despite the fact the company isn't structured in such a way. The same people that have always helmed CDPR are still the ones calling the shots. It's gamers' typical go-to argument despite things being far more complicated than that in the large majority of situations.

Other than that there is certainly a deeper conversation to be had here on the virtues of capitalism (I would argue we are currently seeing signs of late stage capitalism showing it's a system doomed to fail) but we'd have to go into politics and real world events which... y'know can't do that here.

 

[Mobster100]

Well, in all honesty that was to be expected. We want better and bigger games all the time and we don't want to pay more for them. Companies are scrambling to find ways to make as much as they can from their products without alienating their customer base. It's a complicated situation to say the least. Sure we can reduce it to greedy investors and companies execs but that's only part of the truth.

I agree with you partly, sure people want more. Im not really sure if people especially want bigger games as such. It depends what you mean by bigger? Because looking at No man sky for instance, yes its a big game in regards to the Universe, but clearly people weren't to impressed or interested in that sort of big.

Fallout 4 and Fallout 3, were big games, but were they bigger than Fallout 1 and 2? So I found this person that have looked into the quest design.

First, I'd like to start by saying that I enjoyed Fallout 4 and it is a good game. I feel like I got my moneys worth.

That being said, it never felt like a proper fallout game and I originally assumed it was primarily because of the quest design choice. I went and started to compile all the quest for Fallout 2, New Vegas, and 4 and keep track of the type of quest they were and how many solutions they provided to make sure I didn't have Nostalgia glasses on. The results surprised me.
Of the three games Fallout had the highest number of quest with a single solution at 61% of the quest, Fallout 2 had 56% of its quest with a single solution, and New Vegas only had 35.96% of its quest tied to a single solution.

When looking at quest with more than two solutions; Fallout 4 had 17.05%, Fallout 2 20.41%, and New Vegas with 30.34%

Next we need to look at the quest variety in terms of what you are asked to do. This was kept simplified and divided into 4 categories.

Errand No killing, delivery/retrieval quest.

Kill Killing/sneaking is required. Even if you can spare someone at the end, if you had to clear out enemies/sneak past them it still counts.

Multiple You can either kill your way through the quest or using an alternative method to solve it.

Skill Only way to complete/get the quest is have a high enough skill in something

The table linked above already breaks this down and shows percentages. However, I would like to point out that the Skill quest system was essentially only in Fallout 2 and I believe this is because of the original fallout design philosophy.

Additionally, while roughly only a 1/3rd of the New Vegas and Fallout 2 quest were kill only missions, 60% of Fallout 4 missions were kill only.

Lastly, I'd like to take a look at quest with multiple solutions that required skills or perks that were not Speech/Barter. Fallout 4 only had 4, New Vegas had 14, and Fallout 2 had a whopping 25. The number makes sense for Fallout 4 since they removed skills and the perk system is almost entirely focused on combat/settlement stuff. I believe Fallout 2 had so many because of the design philosophy behind the original two Fallout games.

Just to be clear, im not trying to say that new games are bad or they are not putting in any effort or anything like that. Simply that when we refer to "bigger" and "better" games, these older games did have a lot of features, surely they didn't have the modern graphics or sound, cool 3d animations and cutscenes etc. But they weren't simple games by any means. And also computer hardware and tools for making games are much better now than back then, the whole infrastructure and communication etc.

Take a game like UFO - Enemy unknown, which in my opinion is one of the absolute best games ever made, obviously outdated now. But it had some very cool features, base building, hunting down UFO mechanics, equipping troops, tactical missions, research, manufacturing etc. My point being that it had an amazing amount of complex features.

So especially when saying "better" games, what exactly are we talking about, surely F04 have some very cool features, base building, mod support etc. But for instance the dialog system is dumbed down compare to what it were before, even compared to a game like Morrowind. Even CP's dialog system is fairly bad and underdeveloped in my opinion, with very few actual options and hardly any choices.

Anyway to keep it somewhat short, had FO4 and CP had better dialogs more flexible choices in the story, yeah sure it would be a lot better, and some things they do are cool as well, but its very vague way of describing games, in regards to what "better" and "bigger" means I think.

 

[Spockprime]

With that rationale you might as well avoid it for a while anyway. There will be patches regardless of the creation club and every patch will break major mods as they've always done in the past.

Not criticizing your rationale FYI, just saying if the issue is broken mods it'll be an issue for the first year or so anyway.

Yes, good point. In my mind, I was contrasting between purchasing the game after 6 months, or a couple of years. I don't have much any confidence in Bethesda turning out something stable, and I don't know how long it will take the mod groups who fix the game for them to get up to speed on the game's systems or the new creation kit to fix the game. My wild guess is six months.

 

[Notserious80]

Im kinda curious about the money thing myself. Seen some talk about higher production costs witch i kinda agree on. But at the same time some companys are making obscene money. Some companys are also releasing the same game over and over.. Im betting they would gladly raise the price of the games too. If 70 Euro became the new standard, i would probably just buy less games or wait for sales so they would probably end up loosing money atleast from me in the end ^^

I can understand a price hike if theres investment into something new, but if i see just larger bonuses then ill just not buy the game. I tend too find even 60 euro too much for some games tbh. Even if its open world and 100 hours content since theres nothing new about the game. The quests are the same as all other open world games and so on (im starting too get kinda tired of the open world im guessing since there all the same). Its rare today too see something new at all sadly.

At the same time im glad when i see smaller games make a big mark, Valheim for example. Great too see them sell as well as they did on basicly word of mouth. Probably had more fun in that game then in alot of games with much more production values and bigger teams ^^

 

[GrimReaper801]

I agree with you partly, sure people want more. Im not really sure if people especially want bigger games as such. It depends what you mean by bigger? Because looking at No man sky for instance, yes its a big game in regards to the Universe, but clearly people weren't to impressed or interested in that sort of big.

Fallout 4 and Fallout 3, were big games, but were they bigger than Fallout 1 and 2? So I found this person that have looked into the quest design.

I meant bigger and better in the general sense. Not necessarily in the physical sense. Even then, a lot of people get angry when a sequel in smaller (physically) than it's previous iteration.

Just look at CP2077. Even had it released in perfect condition across all systems, people would still have been angry/disappointed by the fact it's shorter and "smaller" in scope than TW3.

Im kinda curious about the money thing myself. Seen some talk about higher production costs witch i kinda agree on. But at the same time some companys are making obscene money. Some companys are also releasing the same game over and over.. Im betting they would gladly raise the price of the games too. If 70 Euro became the new standard, i would probably just buy less games or wait for sales so they would probably end up loosing money atleast from me in the end ^^

It's an undeniable fact that higher productions costs are a thing. It's indisputable. A game like RDR2 costing an estimated 514 million dollars was unimaginable a decade ago. Hell, a game like CP2077 with a 300+ million budget was unimaginable.

It's true that some companies are also consequently making obscene amount of money but they're generally also running obscenely high operational costs. Not only that but it's the risk to reward ratio that's completely different. A game like RDR2 that costs half a billion dollars to produce .... if it flops, it's a pretty hard hit to take. If it flops hard it can definitely mean bankruptcy. It's a huge deal. The margin for error is extremely thin at that point. It just has to sell.

It's why you see these big, cookie-cutter games repeating themselves over and over with such small incremental upgrades. If they make big sweeping upgrades that cost them tens if not hundreds of million dollars and then that doesn't catch on... they're screwed. AAA game development is a risky business.

With prices staying the same, it's unavoidable.

 

[Garrison72]

I'm stoked as hell for the game. I hope Bethesda can regain some of their lost glory with Starfield.

 

[Notserious80]

I meant bigger and better in the general sense. Not necessarily in the physical sense. Even then, a lot of people get angry when a sequel in smaller (physically) than it's previous iteration.

Just look at CP2077. Even had it released in perfect condition across all systems, people would still have been angry/disappointed by the fact it's shorter and "smaller" in scope than TW3.



It's an undeniable fact that higher productions costs are a thing. It's indisputable. A game like RDR2 costing an estimated 514 million dollars was unimaginable a decade ago. Hell, a game like CP2077 with a 300+ million budget was unimaginable.

It's true that some companies are also consequently making obscene amount of money but they're generally also running obscenely high operational costs. Not only that but it's the risk to reward ratio that's completely different. A game like RDR2 that costs half a billion dollars to produce .... if it flops, it's a pretty hard hit to take. If it flops hard it can definitely mean bankruptcy. It's a huge deal. The margin for error is extremely thin at that point. It just has to sell.

It's why you see these big, cookie-cutter games repeating themselves over and over with such small incremental upgrades. If they make big sweeping upgrades that cost them tens if not hundreds of million dollars and then that doesn't catch on... they're screwed. AAA game development is a risky business.

With prices staying the same, it's unavoidable.

While i agree with most points here, at the same time both those games made that back within a week. And thats kinda my point. RDR2 was pretty much known as a smash hit (most Rockstar games are, except for the remakes) CDPR enjoyed a big reputation before cp2077 (would say its not as stellar anymore but) It feels like the games industry has gone too a somewhat odd place during my lifetime, from a smaller but tighter knit community too a much much bigger industry. Im not entierly sure its a good move tbh. Atleast not for consumers.

I get the AAA has too make money but at the same time if you release the same game over and over its gonna fail sooner or later. Just look at netflix atm for example. They have been stagnating for a while but im guessing they still make profits. Its just not growing there subscribers anymore. They also tend too adopt whats hot right now and do it untill it flops totaly like most trends do. I just want good games, thats it ^^ Does not have too be totaly revolutionary but some innovation would be nice at times...

 

[Mobster100]

I meant bigger and better in the general sense. Not necessarily in the physical sense. Even then, a lot of people get angry when a sequel in smaller (physically) than it's previous iteration.

Just look at CP2077. Even had it released in perfect condition across all systems, people would still have been angry/disappointed by the fact it's shorter and "smaller" in scope than TW3.

Nothing is perfect, I personally thought that it was a good idea of them to sort of make people decide how long they wanted the main quest to be, by making it shorter and then add a lot of the extra content into the side quests. But after completing the game, I would take that back and say that I prefer how it was in the TW3. It got to rushed for me in CP, I think the idea could still work, but the main quest has to be longer, if they want to do the same approach with the new Witcher game.

I haven't tried playing CP where you just go straight for the main quests, but my guess is that you would end up not really feeling that you progressed your character a lot.

But if we are talking purely CP, things I would associate with meaning better in this type of game. Would be stuff, like police system, traffic, pedestrians, that you could go buy stuff from all vendors, eating and drink animations, faction integration and so forth. Because these are things that helps make the world feel real and alive or what to say. Choices in quests and character development based on these choices.

We have seen 3D shooters, "magic" systems, driving simulators etc. before. These are, lets call them pretty standard stuff in games, they might be slightly different, like Doom vs Battlefield or whatever. Nothing which really sets them apart on a greater scale.

What I do think, and obviously where CP got the absolutely most praise, where the characters how they are able to really make them interesting to listen to, NC as a whole, it feels and is a place you want to explore, the scope of the music. These are top notch and what I would refer to as being "better" and "bigger". Because we have seen similar things in Fallout, Skyrim etc. But character in these are very robotic and the voice acting is not that good either, but they just deliver on some other things.

 

[Bloodartist]

Potentially intersted, as I enjoy space as a setting vastly more than post-apocalypse. But as far as gameplay goes, I doubt it will stray far from the fallout-franchise.

ps. Chances are that the game is one giant space bug when it releases. I doubt they will top CDPR though.

 

[MartineDee]

OK. How does this compare with CP2077?

For CP2077, the main thing is the city and its vibe. I love it all. And becoming a cyborg. Still having high hopes that they let V become a mech like Adam Smasher. Oh, right, also I want to wreak havoc in the Crystal Palace with my Caliburn. That is the goal nr. 1 for me in Cyberpunk 2077, but only because I already accomplished climbing to the top of the arena by stacking up cars. I think you get the picture what I find most fun about the game.

I do have Starfiled in my wishlist, but am afraid it might be one of those games that get refunded. Especially if it is fps-locked -- the reason I don't touch really beautiful NFS series, but all the same have Forza Horizon 5.

 

[Didacgomez]

I was looking at what was revealed of character progression systems and combined with Oblivion like dialogue minigame they said, big hold till release for me...1st glance is the worst of perk only buy system with learn by doing with forced grinding(challenges).

 

[Notserious80]

I was looking at what was revealed of character progression systems and combined with Oblivion like dialogue minigame they said, big hold till release for me...1st glance is the worst of perk only buy system with learn by doing with forced grinding(challenges).

was gonna do that anyways. Never ever ever pre ordering again ^^

 

[The_Blacks]

Always wanted a Freelancer-like game in which we could not only travel and combat in space but actually get down the planets and explore them by foot, maybe this game is it? And all with a vintage aesthetic, rather than the IMHO boring clean Sci-Fi style of Star Trek

 

[LeKill3rFou]

Thanks. I hadn't heard. The lack of gameplay updates made it pretty clear that the game was headed for a disastrous launch in November. Still, based on FO76, I'm surprised that they delayed it. I guess that's the new Microsoft influence over Bethesda.

I answer here, better to avoid OT
So it's a guess, but I suspect Microsoft to want to use Starfield to promote their consoles (exclusivity) and above all, the Game Pass.
It's already advertised as available "day one" on the Game Pass. And the ads pop up regularly on my Xbox home screen
"Starfield will be available day one on Game Pass - Subscribe to Game Pass now !"

In my opinion, Microsoft must keep a close look of this game for sure. If Bethesda need more time or ressources... so be it !

 

[Spockprime]

I answer here, better to avoid OT
So it's a guess, but I suspect Microsoft to want to use Starfield to promote their consoles (exclusivity) and above all, the Game Pass.
It's already advertised as available "day one" on the Game Pass. And the ads pop up regularly on my Xbox home screen
"Starfield will be available day one on Game Pass - Subscribe to Game Pass now !"

In my opinion, Microsoft must keep a close look of this game for sure. If Bethesda need more time or ressources... so be it !

I read that one of the reasons for the delay is that they're having trouble getting the cross-generation stuff working well for Xbox One (sounds like another game). I don't know if that's true, but it could be. Microsoft "promised" to promote cross-gen play on its new games, I guess to keep from infuriating the millions of Xbox One owners who still can't get new systems. Now that this is a Microsoft game, the issue sort of makes sense.

 

[ReptilePZ]

Really jinxed the release date with that title, huh @Sardukhar? Tsk tsk tsk.... Well done - I don't think they've delayed anything since Oblivion!

Gonna be interesting to see how this game turns out. It seems like Bethesda are trying to implement feedback from their previous games. Like, are they the first AAA RPG studio to go back to a protagonist that isn't voiced after adding a voiced one in a previous title? Wasn't expecting that, really.

I don't know how they can make so many planets/systems interesting to explore. My guess is that they're not.

Story seems generic enough to please all the people that hated FO4 for attempting (and, admittedly, failing) to have an interesting and involved narrative, so I think the success of this game hinges on how well they can deliver on the exploration.

 

[starrzz]

People seem hyped but I think the reveal was mediocre. Combat looked copy pasted from F3, clunky, zero feedback on damage. AI... how did they even green light that for the reveal? Enemies acted clueless and ran into the line of fire like those pixel spaceships from Asteroid. Voice acting was mediocre, NPCs felt wooden like Oblivion memes. I don't hate Bethesda. I burned thousands of hours in their works. But it looks like - save the visual fidelity - there's been literally zero progress over the years. I can't shake the feeling it's gonna be nothing more but a Fallout on multiple smaller maps ("planets") instead of a large one and with some spaceship minigames added for flavor.

Would love to be proven wrong though...

 

[Notserious80]

People seem hyped but I think the reveal was mediocre. Combat looked copy pasted from F3, clunky, zero feedback on damage. AI... how did they even green light that for the reveal? Enemies acted clueless and ran into the line of fire like those pixel spaceships from Asteroid. Voice acting was mediocre, NPCs felt wooden like Oblivion memes. I don't hate Bethesda. I burned thousands of hours in their works. But it looks like - save the visual fidelity - there's been literally zero progress over the years. I can't shake the feeling it's gonna be nothing more but a Fallout on multiple smaller maps ("planets") instead of a large one and with some spaceship minigames added for flavor.

Would love to be proven wrong though...

Im not exactly hyped, looks alot like a FO/TES clone but with space exploration and probably alot of content thats just empty planets too explore. It does sound kinda fun tho, hopefully it will be decent and with full mod support it could become a giant game. Voiceless protagonist and hopefully a developed system with choices in builds and behaviours.

 

[Draconifors]

Space ladders? Hmm... might get my interest to climb.