Todd Howard thinks that Starfield was divisive because it was too different than what Bethesda had done before.
Todd Howard reckons he knows why Starfield was so divisive: It was too 'different than you've seen from us in past'
Some players just "prefer the way it's done in Fallout or Elder Scrolls."www.pcgamer.com
More like it was divisive because based on the recent beta as well as DLC plans, they release a half finished game.
I imagine that most of the people who played and were disappointed in Starfield have already played Fallout 4 and it's all of the people who haven't played either that are picking up the latter because of the new show. In other words, people who "hate" Starfield aren't the reason for the spiking Fallout 4 sales, IMO.I am still trying to comprehend the hate for this game, especially after the recent resurgence of Fallout 4 which is literally just a worse Starfield.
Starfield doesn't have interesting exploration or lore compared to the Fallout games. Maybe that's subjective/debatable but it doesn't have VATS or the kill cam. And it felt like you're walking around boring cities most of the time vs wastelands. So if it's like Fallout, it's without most of the stuff that made the Fallout games good.I am still trying to comprehend the hate for this game, especially after the recent resurgence of Fallout 4 which is literally just a worse Starfield.
The hate stems from everything that Bethesda promised not actually being in the game. They gave us 300 planets with 6 actually having anything on them. Everything the Starfield tried to be, No Man's Sky did 100x better. Hopefully Bethesda can get Starfield to what they promised, but it took No Man's Sky like 4 years to hit their stride.I am still trying to comprehend the hate for this game, especially after the recent resurgence of Fallout 4 which is literally just a worse Starfield.
As for the update, 60 FPS on console is huge though in the patch notes it hints that it is not a completely stable 60. The maps are also a nice visual upgrade though I never had issues getting around before.
I'm not sure how the land vehicle will work, unless the planet tiles get a rework they're small enough that you don't need one and you'll probably hit the boundary pretty quickly when using one. I expect we'll see more on this and the DLC at Xbox's show in June.
Can you give me any specific examples of things that were promised but not in the game? I was following it pretty closely and the only thing I can think of is shortly before launch Pete Hines replied to someone on Twitter saying that you could walk around the entire planet when actually they are segmented. In reality this hasn't factored into my gameplay once.
I would argue that Fallout 4 didn't have anything that made the previous Fallout games good either (role playing), instead we got the looting and crafting formula that I found fun in that game and even more so in this one.
There are articles being written calling for BGS to abandon the game. The comments of every post they make are filled with people complaining. User reviews are low. I really don't think it's controversial to say that people hate Starfield
While I think I enjoyed Starfield more than most, I definitely am not really eager to go back to play it again lol. It definitely has issues but I didn't hate a lot of the content. I think part of me enjoyed playing through it the first time so much because it was the first BGS game in over a decade to not have a voiced protagonist and I honestly had no hype for it at all until the week leading up to it.
Imma be honest, I still don't get this critique in comparison to Fallout 3. New Vegas of course, but that is a level of player choice/consequence that Bethesda (and most games that aren't straight up isometric crpgs) have never done. In Fallout 3 your choices are really just as limited, at best there are often only two options to deal with things - in New Vegas the options are so numerous I've played that game through 5 times and each time felt like a different game. Fallout 3 and 4 are closer to the Elder Scrolls as one would expect. I agree that the voiced protagonist and crappy dialogue wheel was a mistep (that I'm glad Starfield went away from again)- but I still wouldn't say that necessarily took it out of the rpg category. There are still a lot of different builds and ways to play the game - and a decent amount of choices to make.
Personally I don't consider 3 to be a good game, 4 is much better in my opinion. The only thing I think 3 does better are the dialogue and level up systems. The level up system in Fallout 4 was easily my least favourite part of that game.
I am still trying to comprehend the hate for this game, especially after the recent resurgence of Fallout 4 which is literally just a worse Starfield.
As for the update, 60 FPS on console is huge though in the patch notes it hints that it is not a completely stable 60. The maps are also a nice visual upgrade though I never had issues getting around before.
I'm not sure how the land vehicle will work, unless the planet tiles get a rework they're small enough that you don't need one and you'll probably hit the boundary pretty quickly when using one. I expect we'll see more on this and the DLC at Xbox's show in June.
It's the most cookie cutter, mid, 6.5 game of all time. Tons of interesting concepts, but nothing really sticks the landing, and the whole is less than the sum of it's parts.
You're on PC, right? Back when I played the game in September, there was already a terrific inventory mod called StarUI Inventory. It was stable and full-featured right from the beginning, since it was a port of the very mature FallUI Inventory mod for Fallout 4. It made inventory management more bearable for me. That, a few other StarUI mods and several mods from other authors definitely reduced my frustration with the game.
As I just alluded to, a number of the best mods are actually pretty mature already because they've been around for the better part of a decade for Fallout 4. At least that's one advantage of Bethesda using an old engine.
Oh. My mistake. I saw that you play a lot of cRPGs, which usually means PC, and PC gamers have more complaints about Starfield's inventory, since it's optimized for console and not PC. Oh well.
I love Bethesda games. I don't care much about beautiful graphics or well crafted stories, I just need enough to not feel cheesy while exploring and looting. They've scratched this itch for me with Oblivion, Fallout 3, Skyrim (a personal favorite), Fallout 4, and even Fallout 76. The biggest problem I have with Starfield is that I don't want to do one more thing before I quit. A friend just started Fallout 4 and I decided to restart it. I was supposed to go to bed at 1130 and it's 215. With all it's issues, I still had some internal drive to do one more thing before quitting. Starfield never provided me that, and I really wanted to love it. I put it down somewhere around 30 hours and level 30 something, and haven't gone back since I think February.
