No starfield posts?

[WanderingAries]

I think I played about an hour at the most before needing to pass out. It continues the trend of "are these Really current gen GFX?", there aren't all that many Accessibility choices, very minimal actual options (compared to like the Horizon series), and I spent most my time trying to figure out what buttons did what and realized that the buttons' functions were only gradually being unlocked (unlike most games where they're active from the start). I'd like to know what idiot put the CC AFTER the bloody intro mission as well. That's normally almost the first thing you do in most games, but I must have gone half an hour before I got into it. Now granted, having played all these Bethesda games in the past, I was spending a lot of time making sure I didn't miss anything (not knowing if that even had a point beyond demoing the function of the tool), so a 'normal' person could probably get through it in like 10-15 minutes before making it to the CC. I still don't see how they couldn't unlock the consoles for 60 FPS and let us deal with the usual Bethesda "features" that we're all used to.

[biostem]

I gotta be honest - I have very little interest in the clean sci-fi aesthetic, (outside of the more farcical/satirical take found in Portal 1&2), not to mention the world doesn't seem to have very much character to it.  Fallout 76 has let me down as of these last few months, but CoH is more than enough for me for the time being...

Edited September 2, 2023 by biostem

[Techwright]

19 hours ago, honoroit said:

2/ it resembles no mans sky - but with less ability to explore

 

To be fair, No Man's Sky was terrible when it came out, but an aggressive rollout of patches and additional material over the years has made the game quite playable.  This is one of the reasons I opted to wait a few months to access Starfield.  Game companies these days feel the pressure to push out a product before it's fully baked, and fix it afterwards, something Bill Gates taught everyone decades ago. 

 

I've not sat down to watch the Starfield YouTube videos yet, but I've heard that despite the similarities, there's a major difference:  NMS is 256 galaxies with trillions of worlds, but a limited amount of variety in those worlds.  Starfield, I'm told, is around 1000 systems and their planets, and more detail in those worlds.  Quantity vs. detail quality.  Whether that detail difference means more flora and fauna per world, I don't know. If what is reported to me is accurate, that would seem to make them very different.

 

What's the "less ability to explore"? Is that a reference to fewer worlds, more limited ground movement, etc?

[honoroit]

1 hour ago, Techwright said:

 

To be fair, No Man's Sky was terrible when it came out, but an aggressive rollout of patches and additional material over the years has made the game quite playable.  This is one of the reasons I opted to wait a few months to access Starfield.  Game companies these days feel the pressure to push out a product before it's fully baked, and fix it afterwards, something Bill Gates taught everyone decades ago. 

 

I've not sat down to watch the Starfield YouTube videos yet, but I've heard that despite the similarities, there's a major difference:  NMS is 256 galaxies with trillions of worlds, but a limited amount of variety in those worlds.  Starfield, I'm told, is around 1000 systems and their planets, and more detail in those worlds.  Quantity vs. detail quality.  Whether that detail difference means more flora and fauna per world, I don't know. If what is reported to me is accurate, that would seem to make them very different.

 

What's the "less ability to explore"? Is that a reference to fewer worlds, more limited ground movement, etc?

 

its empty.

 

when you 'go forward randomly' in fallout 3/new vegas/4, hell even 76, you encounter many things.  

 

not so in starfield, theres 15m stretches of walking over nothingness regularly.

 

 

 

[WanderingAries]

I watched a video yesterday that explained why roaming a planet is pointless due to how the game is designed. Basically, every time you pop down to a spot on a planet (not a static designed city), the game randomly generates the terrain. Each and every time. So if you roam area A, pop up to orbit, pop down to area B that's adjacent to area A, then you're not going to find the Same terrain that you found the previous time you were at area A. So aside from popping down for resources, there's no reason to spend all that much time on a planet it seems. The upside is that you probably won't deplete that planet of resources (from the little I've played).

 

Oh and it's REAL EASY to fill up all your starting storage, but so long as you don't go mining right away, then you'll be able to grab all the loot from the first story area (from start of game to the first settlement) all while being only 200% over encumbered. 😛 TBH, you'll want to do it as you'll double the measly amount of credits you find / start with to that point. That's as far as I've played though, so IDK how maximizing credits is going to go yet, but I do see just how expensive things like ships are going to be. O.O

[Techwright]

2 hours ago, WanderingAries said:

I watched a video yesterday that explained why roaming a planet is pointless due to how the game is designed. Basically, every time you pop down to a spot on a planet (not a static designed city), the game randomly generates the terrain. Each and every time. So if you roam area A, pop up to orbit, pop down to area B that's adjacent to area A, then you're not going to find the Same terrain that you found the previous time you were at area A. So aside from popping down for resources, there's no reason to spend all that much time on a planet it seems. The upside is that you probably won't deplete that planet of resources (from the little I've played).

 

Starfield is single player, correct?  I wonder why it wouldn't be designed to generate a planet then lock that design into place for the duration of the solo game?

[WanderingAries]

On 9/3/2023 at 6:03 PM, Techwright said:

 

Starfield is single player, correct?  I wonder why it wouldn't be designed to generate a planet then lock that design into place for the duration of the solo game?

 

Because it would probably use too many resources, but now that I understand the design better, I'm not as put off about it AND it explains why each planet drop is Instanced vs smooth transition like in NMS. They would have gotten less flack about it had they gone ahead and fleshed this out before release. A bunch of hate for nothing.

[Hyperstrike]

It's not really in a genre I care about.
Also, it's built in such a way that it's more "technology testbed".  I've never really been about games that could make a $4000 system feel like a half-dead P3 800 and an overheated Voodoo1.

If you enjoy this sort of thing?

Knock yourself out!


 

[Apogee]

13 hours ago, Hyperstrike said:

It's not really in a genre I care about.
Also, it's built in such a way that it's more "technology testbed".  I've never really been about games that could make a $4000 system feel like a half-dead P3 800 and an overheated Voodoo1.

If you enjoy this sort of thing?

Knock yourself out!
 

 

The game runs just fine on a low end system let alone a $4,000 rig.  My system doesn't even meet the minimum requirements and I haven't had any issues.  The game isn't for everyone, for sure, but system requirements is not show stopper.

[Hyperstrike]

2 hours ago, Apogee said:

 

The game runs just fine on a low end system let alone a $4,000 rig.  My system doesn't even meet the minimum requirements and I haven't had any issues.  The game isn't for everyone, for sure, but system requirements is not show stopper.

And what LOD are you playing at?

[Apogee]

I am playing on low settings for sure but it doesn't look bad.  Gameplay is very smooth, no stutters, and transitions are quick.  Images aren't as sharp as they would be at high settings but neither is my vision .  My point is that even with minimum specs the game looks good, runs fine, and is completely playable.  A high end system will look better but it is by no means a requirement.  

[Hyperstrike]

2 hours ago, Apogee said:

I am playing on low settings for sure but it doesn't look bad.  Gameplay is very smooth, no stutters, and transitions are quick.  Images aren't as sharp as they would be at high settings but neither is my vision .  My point is that even with minimum specs the game looks good, runs fine, and is completely playable.  A high end system will look better but it is by no means a requirement.  

 

 

Yup.  Makes no difference at all.

[Apogee]

20 minutes ago, Hyperstrike said:

 

 

Yup.  Makes no difference at all.
 

 

Lol.  For the record, it looks better than the pic above (and better than Skyrim at HIGH settings).

 

I get it, the game isn't your cup of tea, but stating it makes a $4000 system melt is misleading.  From all reviews I have read, and from my own experience with 50+ hours in the game, this is the most bug free game from Bethesda.

[PeregrineFalcon]

I'm planning on NOT buying Starfield. Early reviewers have been saying that much of the game is boring, that it's a buggy and broken mess.

 

But honestly, the real reason that I won't be buying it is because I agree with Heelvsbabyface.

[honoroit]

38 minutes ago, PeregrineFalcon said:

the real reason that I won't be buying it is because I agree with Heelvsbabyface

 

he screamed about a lot of things in his video - what part in particular? gender pronouns? 

 

its a thing younger than me, but the truth of the matter is - sometimes people go through life being thrown mud at for all sorts of things.

 

their skintone, the fact that they might entertain 'race mixing' and inter-racial pairings, ritualized genital surgeries weeks or days after birth, pink-is-for-girls and blue-is-for-boys, forced marriages at crazy low ages, forced pregnancies, prejudice on pretty much anything - often based on nothing but the superstitions and clime of the locale.  and this in the USA, not a taliban run far off depotism.  hell, if you have red hair you have no soul, and there's people who can measure and assign that too!

 

heels shouted a lot at a microphone, to an aging audience, of something-something-wow-maybe-relevant-2005.

 

<--- But starfield, not Bethesda's finest --->

---> and that has nothing to do with allowing a player to feel comfortable in their skin behind the screen - one of the few places they might get the chance.  see, people get up randomly on forums and announce they feel against x, y or z. you know, because... the guy who sells magazines in disco elysium. they're all over, sadly.

 

that kind of inclusion, that allows a person to feel themselves - it pierces loneliness, and makes slightly less scary the crazy man from an old mmo jeering at a person.  it is important, to be kind.  Its christian, its buddhist, its of a good alignment, it is to be of a mind in charity, and in one that extends a hand.

 

to hell with awful sentiment.  it be damned, and our lungs filled with vigor in the expelling of it.

 

from a similar time ago.  is crona a boy or a girl? they fight good, why'dja give a shit?

[biostem]

4 minutes ago, honoroit said:

he screamed about a lot of things in his video - what part in particular? gender pronouns? 

IMO, it's more about the "you put your RL in my escapism" part. 

[honoroit]

Just now, biostem said:

IMO, it's more about the "you put your RL in my escapism" part. 

 

the inverse, to strip RL from escapism, is exactly what enforces loneliness, isolation and spiral of ostracisms.

 

you could pick he/him, and be done with it? 

[biostem]

2 minutes ago, honoroit said:

the inverse, to strip RL from escapism, is exactly what enforces loneliness, isolation and spiral of ostracisms.

Then I don't think you understand what "escapism" means.

 

2 minutes ago, honoroit said:

you could pick he/him, and be done with it? 

The pronoun part is a red herring, and only a tiny part of his rant.

Edited September 6, 2023 by biostem

[honoroit]

Just now, biostem said:

he I don't think you understand what "escapism" means.

 

looking in a mirror, and so that beholder sees; wishing it were a looking glass, peering beyond and through, maybe nodding away in imaginations?  what is or should be barred in such a vision?

[biostem]

1 minute ago, honoroit said:

looking in a mirror, and so that beholder sees; wishing it were a looking glass, peering beyond and through, maybe nodding away in imaginations?  what is or should be barred in such a vision?

Imagine that the options were instead to choose Catholic or Baptist, and that decision factored into the gameplay to some degree, (for instance assuming your character was a devout follower).  Would you be happy with that, or would you prefer such assumptions about your character be left out?  

[honoroit]

53 minutes ago, biostem said:

Imagine that the options were instead to choose Catholic or Baptist, and that decision factored into the gameplay to some degree, (for instance assuming your character was a devout follower).  Would you be happy with that, or would you prefer such assumptions about your character be left out?  

 

Catholic, obviously. the rest are literally derivative.

 

but being able to choose nothing, but man with beard strong, woman with curvaceous hips, 💋 kisses - no persona, thatd be restrictive.

 

non sex affirming gender pronoun choice is only going to present if you elect to choose it.

 

its like being upset mcdonalds exists when youve no intention of eating there, just dont go in. maybe not burn it down.

 

...take character creation in cyberpunk, you can have no bits and pieces whatsoever, or have the reverse you might expect... in baldurs gate you can elect for ritualistic genital surgery options, and even sex bears 🐻, actual ursine bears 🐻. and demons.  thats ungodly, AND dangerous.

 

(the mind flayer tentacles are erogenous areas, I know, well Figs knows. he only sexes demons and bears in Faerûn, no humans, no women. only demons and bears. maybe vampires, but the guys a prick.)

Edited September 6, 2023 by honoroit

[biostem]

15 minutes ago, honoroit said:

but being able to choose nothing, but man with beard strong, woman with curvaceous hips, 💋 kisses - no persona, thatd be restrictive.

No matter how many options they give you, it'll be restrictive to *someone*.  There's also no reason they couldn't have masculine women or feminine men, without them necessarily using the other body type or different pronouns.  No need to go to the extreme of Jessica Rabbit or Johnny Bravo...

[honoroit]

 

more manly tho... and a crazy lady tortured him, cut all that off. scary comics. i dont think juuzou has pronouns, in that theyd not occur to him.

 

razor rhamon has pronouns.  adam in the garden of eden he/him. takes what he wants he/him.

Edited September 6, 2023 by honoroit

[WanderingAries]

22 hours ago, Hyperstrike said:

Voodoo1.

 

 I miss my Voodoo 3   ;_;

[WanderingAries]

9 hours ago, Apogee said:

The game runs just fine on a low end system let alone a $4,000 rig.  My system doesn't even meet the minimum requirements and I haven't had any issues.  The game isn't for everyone, for sure, but system requirements is not show stopper.

 

Even with the supposed reduced FPS, I'm noticing so graphical peculiarities on the XBsX for sure. If you've ever seen that weird vector projection effect (a line popping out of nowhere) in old games, then that's a thing for sure. It's rather annoying AF as I'll get random lines that may or may not relate to the companion's aiming, but it's mostly when just walking around.