I spent 10 bucks on a month of MS Game Pass to give this a shot - I have no interest in the setting and the thought of space ship battles and base building leaves me cold, but the reviews are good so I was curious.

I'm only a couple of hours in but from what I've seen it's a solid game - it looks good and had lots of options to play with graphically (on PC anyway). But yeah it's just Skyrim / Fallout 4 in space, as expected, and I'm not motivated to jump back into it.

badmojo wrote on 2023-09-07, 23:30:

I spent 10 bucks on a month of MS Game Pass to give this a shot - I have no interest in the setting and the thought of space ship battles and base building leaves me cold, but the reviews are good so I was curious.

I'm only a couple of hours in but from what I've seen it's a solid game - it looks good and had lots of options to play with graphically (on PC anyway). But yeah it's just Skyrim / Fallout 4 in space, as expected, and I'm not motivated to jump back into it.

I can't think of any other studio willing to make a Bethesda like game other than Bethesda.

The average experience in shockingly sub par, but the sheer amount of game you get is what makes it unique. If there was another studio willing to do what Bethesda does but better we would all play those games, but there isn't.

Skyrim in space sounds like a pretty good time.

I'm going to wait for probably two more generations of hardware though. Performance isn't great and we need moders to actually finish the game. So standard fare for a Bethesda game.

mothergoose729 wrote on 2023-09-07, 23:43:

Skyrim in space sounds like a pretty good time.

I loved Skyrim don't get me wrong, and I'd need play through some actual content before I'm qualified to comment, it's just the space setting that I don't like the idea of. I'm much happier roaming an earth-like forest with a sword and bow.

I like it. It takes a heckuva system to run it smoothly th0ugh.

Looks like a project that didn't come together well. Surprisingly uneven from an experienced studio.

Starfield 2 in 5-10 years could be interesting. This kind of game needs strong AI to drive real-time content and interaction generation, and it's too early.

I got a refund. I was super excited to play this after BG3. But during the early access period, I saw it was no better than Failout 76. A true bugthesda mess.

BG3 has RUINED my expectations for gaming.

maybe next year after modders do all the work to polish out the bugs, and its on sale will I consider playing it.

luckybob wrote on 2023-09-09, 16:03:

BG3 has RUINED my expectations for gaming.

Absolutely. Yes. BG3 is the bar by which all future games (RPG or not) will be judged by.

Yes there are bugs and annoyances (I still get chests/traps that don't unlock after I unlock them once), but I am willing to forgive those for the sheer quality of content, story, character arcs and worldbuilding that they've done. It is truly first rate gaming.

The fact is also still runs great on my 9th gen i7 and gtx1080 is also very welcome!

I watched the trailer. I was unimpressed with the look of the characters. I'm not what you would call a gamer. It just seems I've seen better quality.

I like the theme of the game. I just fear it may be a lot of hype. You can't expect wonders I suppose. But I just believe I've seen better.

luckybob wrote on 2023-09-09, 16:03:

I got a refund. I was super excited to play this after BG3. But during the early access period, I saw it was no better than Failout 76. A true bugthesda mess.

Yeah I'm done with it, maybe I'll check it out again in 10 years when they release the SE.

I saw lipsink issues, floating trees, quick saves taking 60 seconds - surely this basic stuff should have been ironed out in the early rounds of testing.

If you want a polished game, always play your games in Late Access. I.e. when the game has been well out from early access, and has got several patches to it, a few discount rounds, and maybe a DLC or two. Plus there will be several of those "performance-enhancing" patches that fix all the stuttering and other issues that the game will play better on older hardware as well.

Game development has become so complex that there is no way that any studio is able to see all the bugs in house, and they need the bug reports from the hundreds of thousands of players in the public to get the polish. That is just the reality, no professional in house testers can beat the tens of thousands times as many players with as many hardware combinations.

Baldur's Gate 3 was no different, it was in Early Access for _three years_ for exactly that, and they also had the luxury of a successful EA that a lot of people actually played the game during Early Access. Games that are unable to get the player volume during EA will always release as buggy. Thanks to all those people who pay for the chance to become bug testers.

We had this lesson from somewhere before 😀

I haven't made a decision on the game yet. Skyrim was a competent time sink (competent at being a time sink), as for Fallout 4, it's already a high praise to call it mediocre. As for what I've seen about the game, it looks boring. Not something I'd pay 70€ for (which is already 10% more than $70).

clb wrote on 2023-09-11, 07:38:

Game development has become so complex that there is no way that any studio is able to see all the bugs in house, and they need the bug reports from the hundreds of thousands of players in the public to get the polish. That is just the reality, no professional in house testers can beat the tens of thousands times as many players with as many hardware combinations.

yea... i'm gonna stop ya there bud.

larian put out a polished game. no its not perfect. But I went 180 hours into a playthrough, and I had maybe 2 minor bugs, and one crash to desktop. All three of those issues were address and fixed on patch #2. BG# and Starfield spent roughly the same amount of time "in the oven". The difference is, bugthesda doesnt give a hot wet shit and knows the modding community will simp over the mod maker and do their job for them. micosoft/bethesda is one of the largest corporations on this floating ball of mud. They have the capacity to make sure things are released with proper playtesting, fixes, dev time. compared to just bethesda, larian studios is a ROUNDING error in terms of "value". And you talk about using testing in early access as a negative? THATS THE WHOLE FUCKING POINT!

We as gamers DESERVE better games. They dont need to be 150gb blobs of hi res art and buggy code. Even my top of the line system struggles to do 4k at 60fps. thats not progress.

I was REALLY excited to play Starfield, I really was.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqXoqFvZd_U

the bugs are fun to watch, but i'll save my $70 thank you.

luckybob wrote on 2023-09-11, 18:54:

BG# and Starfield spent roughly the same amount of time "in the oven".

How do you mean?

Baldur's Gate 3 was three years in early access, and hit record 70,000 concurrent players on day one of Early access.

Starfield Early Access was five days long and required the player to have either pre-ordered into it in advance, or to purchase an edition that was limited to “only 800 worldwide” players and also quickly sold out.

When I wrote "they need the bug reports from the hundreds of thousands of players in the public to get the polish", I really meant "they need the bug reports from the hundreds of thousands of players in the public to get the polish". Would not take a big betting man to figure out which of the above two would launch with fewer bugs.

BG started dev in 2016 with the acquisition of the D&D license. it probably started a bit earlier than that, as I dont think you would bother paying for the license if the game doesn't have something started.

Starfield was registered as a trademark in 2013. so a good ten years among friends.

also, only 1/3 of BG3 was avail as a "pre order". So if all the polish was because of the "hundred of thousand of players" then the first third should be a polished master piece, and the rest a bug addles shit storm. larian ran a pre-order because THEY WERE FUCKING BROKE.

preorder sure did help. but for frogs snacks, larian made a better game, in a shorter amount of time, and wont be trying to nickel and dime their simps for more money later for horse armor.

Comparing different fruits here really. To each their own.

Starfield could have been built a bit better, considering it's engine has been around for so long. Larion just threw more polish and DnD systems on to the DOS2 engine. Both are the best achievements so far from each studio. I like both more than the overrated CDPR, but that's about as relevant as dragging BG3 into the Starfield convo.

ptr1ck wrote on 2023-09-11, 22:22:

Both are the best achievements so far from each studio.

I disagree on Bethesda. I think they peaked at around Oblivion/Fallout 3. Everything past those are one step forward, two steps back (ignoring 76 which is one step backwards, two steps back).

badmojo wrote on 2023-09-10, 23:44:

luckybob wrote on 2023-09-09, 16:03:

I got a refund. I was super excited to play this after BG3. But during the early access period, I saw it was no better than Failout 76. A true bugthesda mess.

Yeah I'm done with it, maybe I'll check it out again in 10 years when they release the SE.

I saw lipsink issues, floating trees, quick saves taking 60 seconds - surely this basic stuff should have been ironed out in the early rounds of testing.

It's looking like one of those games.
https://youtu.be/watch?v=p1yOh-XRpEQ (language warning)

maybe, just maybe, bethesda has these bugs intentionally for the "free" publicity it gets when people take a warm steaming dump on the game? I mean, thats my whole point. This bug seems so common, it feels like this should have been taken care of so much earlier.

Also, my favorite game reviewer released his take: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zqY4d_-VNY

I'll still play Starfield at some point. it seems passable, but I'm going to wait for a sale.