Something Juicehead said.

[Kraven12]

So I was watching said show, and he brought up that if their new expansion coming up may determine the future of this IP. It would not be the first Bethesda just walked away from titles that have failed to make them the money they want. Even Game Rant is echoing it as well.  Now if that is true, I would like do an opinion or "what if" for you all. 

 

If you had the ear to Todd Howard and you want to save the game, so between now and the new expansion what would you tell Mr. Howard on what he should do to save this IP and keep his vision of 10 year plan? 

 

Mine has always been the same since posting my frustrations. Follow CD Projeckt's  example and do small updates with content added along the way, keep open communication with the community and hype the crap out of the game with teaser trailers. I could go into detail but I am kinda excited to see what everyone would say to focus.   

Edited July 19, 2024 by Kraven12

[Djlegends]

7 hours ago, Kraven12 said:

So I was watching said show, and he brought up that if their new expansion coming up may determine the future of this IP. It would not be the first Bethesda just walked away from titles that have failed to make them the money they want. Even Game Rant is echoing it as well.  Now if that is true, I would like do an opinion or "what if" for you all. 

 

If you had the ear to Todd Howard and you want to save the game, so between now and the new expansion what would you tell Mr. Howard on what he should do to save this IP and keep his vision of 10 year plan? 

 

Mine has always been the same since posting my frustrations. Follow CD Projeckt's  example and do small updates with content added along the way, keep open communication with the community and hype the crap out of the game with teaser trailers. I could go into detail but I am kinda excited to see what everyone would say to focus.   

kindof weird about walking away since fallout 76 had everything coming against it yet somehow that game is outliving helldivers 2 lol

[Djlegends]

since apparently everybody forgotten about how shitty fo76 was at release

[Miauzi]

Vor 9 Stunden sagte Kraven12:

Also habe ich mir diese Sendung angeschaut und er hat darauf hingewiesen, dass die bevorstehende neue Erweiterung die Zukunft dieser IP bestimmen könnte. Es wäre nicht das erste Mal, dass Bethesda Titel aufgibt, die ihnen nicht das gewünschte Geld eingebracht haben. Sogar Game Rant wiederholt es. Wenn das wahr ist, würde ich gerne eine Meinung oder „Was wäre wenn“ für Sie alle abgeben. 

 

Wenn Sie ein Ohr für Todd Howard hätten und das Spiel retten möchten, was würden Sie Herrn Howard bis zur neuen Erweiterung sagen, was er tun sollte, um diese IP zu retten und seine Vision eines 10-Jahres-Plans beizubehalten? 

 

Bei mir war es immer dasselbe, seit ich meine Frustrationen gepostet habe. Folgen Sie dem Beispiel von CD Projeckt und führen Sie kleine Updates mit hinzugefügten Inhalten durch, pflegen Sie eine offene Kommunikation mit der Community und machen Sie mit Teaser-Trailern Werbung für das Spiel. Ich könnte ins Detail gehen, aber ich bin ein bisschen gespannt, was jeder sagen würde, um sich zu konzentrieren. 

 

Comparisons between "Cyberpunk" and "Starfield" don't really bring anything.

"Cyberpunk" had a good story - the environment was presented in a believable and coherent way... what was lacking were the unbearable number of bugs.

And bugs can be fixed - they didn't have to do anything to the story itself.

On the other hand, "Starfield" has surprisingly few bugs for a game by Bugdesta - but it has an incredibly bad story and is set in a completely absurd SF world.

And such a bad universe cannot be fixed with "small updates" - you would have to completely remake it.

The basic idea of merging a SF world and a fantasy world, as StarWars actually does, is absolute bullshit for me!

With StarWars, that might still work because of the huge (brainless) fan base - but "StarField" feels like a bad copy with "Jedi Knight powers".

Of course, it will find its fans and it has found them... but whether the number will be enough for a long life with "mods without end" - I seriously doubt that.

[Z0mBieP00Nani]

3 hours ago, Djlegends said:

since apparently everybody forgotten about how shitty fo76 was at release

I remember. I also remember all of the retcons. The fact you can't really mod it, and that already have over 2,000 hours into Fallout 4 are probably the main reasons I will never play it.

[Reigor]

1 hour ago, Miauzi said:

On the other hand, "Starfield" has surprisingly few bugs for a game by Bugdesta - but it has an incredibly bad story and is set in a completely absurd SF world.

And such a bad universe cannot be fixed with "small updates" - you would have to completely remake it.

 

Would need a complete setting overhaul, much like Enderal did for Skyrim. While I don't care about Star Wars that much, I would love to see a sci-fi setting with Starfield game mechanics (with some exceptions) that is more in line with with the Expanse, Bladerunner/Aliens, etc... 

[Jarnin]

1 hour ago, Miauzi said:

 

On the other hand, "Starfield" has surprisingly few bugs for a game by Bugdesta - but it has an incredibly bad story and is set in a completely absurd SF world.

And such a bad universe cannot be fixed with "small updates" - you would have to completely remake it.

 

It's possible to play Starfield and not interact with a lot of the stupidity the designers baked into it.

 

2 hours ago, Miauzi said:

The basic idea of merging a SF world and a fantasy world, as StarWars actually does, is absolute bullshit for me!

With StarWars, that might still work because of the huge (brainless) fan base - but "StarField" feels like a bad copy with "Jedi Knight powers".

 

Space opera. It's called space opera. They're soap operas, but set in space. Melodrama which is acted out with laser swords, space battles, and [Not!] magical powers".

 

My issue isn't with the space magic, although I have issues with that too. My issue is just how the design of Starfield makes most of, if not all of the other activities, completely pointless to pursue until after you've jumped universes 10+ times. Seriously, the design of the game says, "Look at all this stuff you can do! Now, don't do any of that; instead pursue these specific activities for this specific faction until you've become a god-like being. Only then do you go and do all this mundane content we designed for characters who are new to the world."

 

In other words:

• Step 1: Become a god.
• Step 2: Run errands for lesser beings.

 

Bethesda made a game where you play the end first, and the beginning last, because good things come to those who can't wait.

 

 

 

[Miauzi]

Vor einer Stunde sagte Reigor:

 

Würde eine komplette Überarbeitung der Einstellungen erfordern, ähnlich wie Enderal es für Skyrim getan hat. Obwohl mir Star Wars nicht besonders am Herzen liegt, würde ich gerne ein Science-Fiction-Setting mit Starfield-Spielmechaniken (mit einigen Ausnahmen) sehen, das eher mit Expanse, Bladerunner/Aliens usw. übereinstimmt ... 

 

Now, with "Enderal" you have to mention that it is already the third part - which the mod group has created over the years ... the first part was developed as a "total conversion" for Morrowind.

In addition to a completely different universe, it is also remarkable that there is a different gameplay (e.g. the magic system) ... the different lore (which reminds me of the "Wheel of Time") rounds it all off.

I don't know of such a complete (content-wise) revision of SF scenarios - "Fallout London" (for example) is set in the same basic universe as "Fallout 1" and all its successors as well.

Why would you write a completely new game on an outdated engine?

Personally, I can't think of a single game mechanic from StarField that would justify using this engine.

But first of all you need a viable SF scenario - one that is not seen by the publishers (or other copyright holders) as a blatant copy of one of their published SF novels (or films)! Otherwise such a project will be over very quickly!

By the way - "Bladerunner" is more of a scenario for a world based on "Fallout" ... Space travel is only in the background - but is not an active component.

By the way - the "Terrormorph" is in my opinion a blatant copy of the idea of "Alien"!

 

---

off topic:

 

Which SF scenario would I like to see as an epic game?

My personal favorite -> "The Armageddon Cycle" (by Peter F. Hamilton) ... by the way, there really is "Zero-G-Fucking" - this world is actually "Over 18"

I'm just hearing my wife's wish -> "The Saga of Honor Harrington" (by David Weber) ... space battles with hundreds of ships - some of which are over 5 km long (and ship-ship missiles that have a range of over 100,000 km at 0.5 c)

[Miauzi]

Vor 6 Minuten sagte Jarnin:

 

Es ist möglich, Starfield zu spielen und nicht mit all der Dummheit zu interagieren, die die Designer darin eingebaut haben.

 

 

Unfortunately, the very first stupidity doesn't allow that at all:

You float in the planet's orbit without actually being in an orbital orbit... no change in position relative to the surface.

This isn't even "space" opera - it's bullshit.

And of course you jump using grav-drive into a collection of asteroids in the immediate vicinity of a planet - which of course don't seem to have a relative speed to the planet either... so they are quasi-stationary less than 10-20,000 km above the surface.

There wasn't even such nonsense in Wing Commander!

By the way - space opera has been around for 100 years - so it's not a "modern" invention - it's just badly made sci-fi... basically fairy tales in space.

So why have a spaceship with roaring engines - if they don't use 1 gram of fuel... by the way, it also roars on a planet without an atmosphere - when you watch a landing (or taking off) spaceship IN A SPACE SUIT.

[Jarnin]

12 minutes ago, Miauzi said:

 

Unfortunately, the very first stupidity doesn't allow that at all:

You float in the planet's orbit without actually being in an orbital orbit... no change in position relative to the surface.

This isn't even "space" opera - it's bullshit.

Bethesda makes games that utilize static worlds with mobile players. In order to do what you want them to do, Bethesda would have had to throw out 25 years of development experience to make a game with a mobile world and static player - the design most used in flight simulators. Starfield was always going to be like this.

 

15 minutes ago, Miauzi said:

And of course you jump using grav-drive into a collection of asteroids in the immediate vicinity of a planet - which of course don't seem to have a relative speed to the planet either... so they are quasi-stationary less than 10-20,000 km above the surface.

There wasn't even such nonsense in Wing Commander!

I removed the asteroids and debris with this mod. They aren't in my game anymore.

 

17 minutes ago, Miauzi said:

By the way - space opera has been around for 100 years - so it's not a "modern" invention - it's just badly made sci-fi... basically fairy tales in space.

Nearly everything you consider sci-fi is actually space opera by definition. Marketing has convinced you otherwise. Science fiction is traditionally very dry, slow, and as such is typically mixed with spicier genres to appeal to mass audiences. If you consider it sci-fi, it's most likely a fusion subgenre.

 

21 minutes ago, Miauzi said:

So why have a spaceship with roaring engines - if they don't use 1 gram of fuel... by the way, it also roars on a planet without an atmosphere - when you watch a landing (or taking off) spaceship IN A SPACE SUIT.

Because Bethesda worships at the alter of the Rule of Cool. They've spent the last two decades making games in fictional worlds where 1+1 doesn't have to equal 2. More importantly, nobody on high was thwacking the underlings to make sure that the content they were creating fit in a semi-realistic world. In other words, the higher-ups were just as ignorant about the topic as the folks making the content.

 

I'm curious if there are any science advisors listed in the credits for Starfield. I've never seen the credits myself, since I've never completed the main story, but based on what I've seen in the game the folks at Bethesda respect science about as much as I respect pocket lint.

[Miauzi]

Vor 4 Minuten sagte Jarnin:

Bethesda entwickelt Spiele, die statische Welten für mobile Spieler nutzen. Um das zu tun, was Sie von ihnen erwarten, hätte Bethesda 25 Jahre Entwicklungserfahrung aufwenden müssen, um ein Spiel mit einer mobilen Welt und einem statischen Player zu entwickeln – dem Design, das in Flugsimulatoren am häufigsten verwendet wird. Starfield würde immer so sein.

 

Ich habe die Asteroiden und Trümmer mit diesem Mod entfernt . Sie sind nicht mehr in meinem Spiel.

 

Fast alles, was Sie als Science-Fiction bezeichnen, ist per Definition tatsächlich Weltraumoper. Das Marketing hat Sie vom Gegenteil überzeugt. Science-Fiction ist traditionell sehr trocken und langsam und wird daher typischerweise mit pikanteren Genres gemischt, um ein Massenpublikum anzusprechen. Wenn Sie es als Science-Fiction betrachten, handelt es sich höchstwahrscheinlich um ein Fusion-Subgenre.

 

Weil Bethesda am Altar der Rule of Cool verehrt . Sie haben die letzten zwei Jahrzehnte damit verbracht, Spiele in fiktiven Welten zu entwickeln, in denen 1+1 nicht gleich 2 sein muss. Noch wichtiger ist, dass niemand von oben die Untergebenen verprügelt hat, um sicherzustellen, dass die von ihnen erstellten Inhalte in eine halbrealistische Welt passen Welt. Mit anderen Worten: Die Vorgesetzten waren über das Thema ebenso wenig informiert wie die Leute, die den Inhalt erstellten.

 

Ich bin gespannt, ob im Abspann von Starfield wissenschaftliche Berater aufgeführt sind. Ich selbst habe den Abspann nie gesehen, da ich die Hauptgeschichte nie abgeschlossen habe, aber basierend auf dem, was ich im Spiel gesehen habe, respektieren die Leute bei Bethesda die Wissenschaft ungefähr so sehr, wie ich Pocket Lint respektiere.

 

Well - when the game was released, one of the things they advertised was that NASA had been involved (pictures of Saturn or something like that)
But the game does correspond to the level of knowledge of the average population in the western world on the subject of astronomy and space travel... really no comparison to the 1960s!

 

---

I've actually been reading science fiction for 50 years - I've also been involved with it on a literary level... it's a very broad field.

But what is currently known in western culture only makes up a tiny part of it!

(I've also been watching films for a similar amount of time)

 

Essentially, this is trash from various comic universes - whose "lore" is becoming more and more absurd - so that it can be exploited for "sales".

[Reigor]

1 hour ago, Miauzi said:

Why would you write a completely new game on an outdated engine?

Personally, I can't think of a single game mechanic from StarField that would justify using this engine.

 

For myself I was impressed with the ship building mechanic, the space flight could use improvement but is serviceable. Gravity mechanics work well, they could be applied to ballistics, but the microgravity is the closest thing to real life I've seen. Having started making mods there a lot of possibilities for making new stories and new game mechanics. 

 

The engine really isn't the issue, never was, its BGS' game design. They have for decades relied on well established IPs, TES and Fallout, to write their stories, like fanfiction writers. They had a formula for exploration for rewarding gameplay that they expanded to a wider audience at the expense of players who want a more hardcore RPG experience than a casual looter/shooter.

 

With Starfield, BGS faced new challenges. Brand new IP and brand new way of exploring and other gameloops. They tried, and for some created a well loved game, but for most players it didn't resonate. Again, not the fault of the engine, rather the setting and game design. 

[Djlegends]

6 hours ago, Reigor said:

 

For myself I was impressed with the ship building mechanic, the space flight could use improvement but is serviceable. Gravity mechanics work well, they could be applied to ballistics, but the microgravity is the closest thing to real life I've seen. Having started making mods there a lot of possibilities for making new stories and new game mechanics. 

 

The engine really isn't the issue, never was, its BGS' game design. They have for decades relied on well established IPs, TES and Fallout, to write their stories, like fanfiction writers. They had a formula for exploration for rewarding gameplay that they expanded to a wider audience at the expense of players who want a more hardcore RPG experience than a casual looter/shooter.

 

With Starfield, BGS faced new challenges. Brand new IP and brand new way of exploring and other gameloops. They tried, and for some created a well loved game, but for most players it didn't resonate. Again, not the fault of the engine, rather the setting and game design. 

best answer tbh now i'm wondering if shattered space will hit the ball out of the park

[Reigor]

I don't think Shattered Space will be a homerun, but I think expectations can be getting onto first base, keeping the baseball terminology. 

 

If they can put out some more gameplay improvements, like the land vehicles, and anything else they can put out...as long as its mostly bug free. Creations still needs tuning in both in getting bugs out of the mod management system (especially xbox) and pricing. Do this before Shattered Space drops.

 

Then when all the players who ordered the premium edition of the game come back to Shattered Space, their might be a bunch of them that go "Hey, the game is much better now! There are some cool mods!" and so on and they might stay to play, keep their gamepass sub going, buy a creation or two, generate buzz for more sales, enough to justify keeping 200+ people gainfully employed to work on more free features and the next big paid DLC next year.

 

Starfield has just gotten started, and even though I will RANT about the setting and some of its mechanics, my life is much better for it. Cuz there is nothing, space sci-fi at least, out there like it when including modding. So I'm hoping that it will last at least another 2 years, 2 more big DLCs. 5 years like Todd talks about would be awesome, but I don't have expectations for that. 

 

And yeah, my continued interest in Starfield does include the eventual sex mods that will eventually come out. 

 

 

Edited July 20, 2024 by Reigor

[nIn nIn nIn]

Why remove the asteroids? They are there to provide us another source for non organic resources. Just blow them up and harvest what drops.

 

There are mods that increase the amount that drops too.

 

I use this one.  TN's Space Mining and Salvage at Starfield Nexus - Mods and Community (nexusmods.com)

[Miauzi]

Vor 6 Stunden sagte nIn nIn nIn:

Warum die Asteroiden entfernen? Sie sind dazu da, uns eine weitere Quelle für nicht-biologische Ressourcen zu bieten. Sprengen Sie sie einfach in die Luft und ernten Sie, was fallen gelassen wird.

 

Es gibt Mods, die auch die Menge an Drops erhöhen.

 

Ich benutze dieses. TNs Space Mining and Salvage bei Starfield Nexus – Mods und Community (nexusmods.com)

 

Yes - you can put a lot of bullshit on top of that.

Instead of creating a location in the rings of gas giants and doing exactly that there - namely space mining - it is better to blast pieces off the asteroids at an altitude of 10,000 km above inhabited planets - so that their orbits become even more uncontrolled.

It's a lot of fun watching - when the pieces crash into inhabited areas on the planet... Nuclear war is "pure children's birthday party" in comparison.

Apart from that - the 5-10 pieces are so close to each other - that in 1000 years they would "crumble" each other into circles... if they were in a REAL orbit - which they are not... they would simply fall to the planet below due to gravity - in less than 1 year!

[Reigor]

7 hours ago, nIn nIn nIn said:

Why remove the asteroids? They are there to provide us another source for non organic resources. Just blow them up and harvest what drops.

 

 

@Miauzi, I believe, wants a more realistic space game. Those dense asteroid fields we have seen in science fiction films since the Empire Strikes Back don't actually exist, at least in our Solar System. The asteroids are a lot farther apart.

 

It's another area where the game designer has to decide fun vs realism. The advantage of a BGS game is that stuff like that can be changed based on the tastes of the individual player, assuming there is a mod for it or they make one themselves.

[Miauzi]

Vor 21 Minuten sagte Reigor:

 

@Miauzi möchte meiner Meinung nach ein realistischeres Weltraumspiel. Diese dichten Asteroidenfelder, die wir seit „Das Imperium schlägt zurück“ in Science-Fiction-Filmen gesehen haben, existieren in Wirklichkeit nicht, zumindest nicht in unserem Sonnensystem. Die Asteroiden sind viel weiter voneinander entfernt.

 

Dies ist ein weiterer Bereich, in dem sich der Spieleentwickler zwischen Spaß und Realismus entscheiden muss. Der Vorteil eines BGS-Spiels besteht darin, dass solche Dinge je nach Geschmack des einzelnen Spielers geändert werden können, vorausgesetzt, es gibt einen Mod dafür oder er erstellt selbst einen.

 

There are many science fiction films that use asteroid fields or dense accumulations of rocks to make complete astronomical nonsense.

But this is exactly the wrong image that has become ingrained in the "laymen" (and that is about 90-95% of the population in industrialized countries).

Even in animated simulations of popular science programs on the subject of astronomy or space travel, flights through the astroid belt, for example, are portrayed completely incorrectly.

In terms of the vastness of space, even billions of house-sized objects are tens of hours' flight time apart.

And in this context, I am so infinitely grateful to films like "Expanse" for their genuine realism... and that is exactly the kind of "space" game I want in the 21st century... especially when the game developer is so brazen in advertising their collaboration with NASA.

In a SFi set, I don't mind FTL drives or even constructs like "hyperspace" ... but I can't ignore massive violations of Newton's gravi-mechanics or Keplerian laws (in natural objects like asteroids)!

[Jarnin]

11 hours ago, nIn nIn nIn said:

Why remove the asteroids? They are there to provide us another source for non organic resources. Just blow them up and harvest what drops.

Fun fact: You can have a mountain of non-organic resources and only use the mining laser a couple times in the tutorial.

• You can buy non-organic resources from vendors.
• You can mine for non-organic resources on the surface of planets.
• You can mine for non-organic resources in caves.
• You can loot non-organic resources randomly on the map while exploring.
• You can loot non-organic resources from enemy corpses.
• You can loot non-organic resources from enemy ships (which is where I get most of my resources)

Asteroids only exist orbiting planets because Bethesda couldn't be bothered to finish the in-game asteroid belts in time, so they got cut out.

[nIn nIn nIn]

12 hours ago, Jarnin said:

 

Asteroids only exist orbiting planets because Bethesda couldn't be bothered to finish the in-game asteroid belts in time, so they got cut out.

 

I seriously doubt this. 100% pure speculation unless you can show me the interview where a BGS developer specifically stated this.

[Raven 54]

On 7/19/2024 at 10:59 AM, Jarnin said:

My issue isn't with the space magic, although I have issues with that too. My issue is just how the design of Starfield makes most of, if not all of the other activities, completely pointless to pursue until after you've jumped universes 10+ times. Seriously, the design of the game says, "Look at all this stuff you can do! Now, don't do any of that; instead pursue these specific activities for this specific faction until you've become a god-like being. Only then do you go and do all this mundane content we designed for characters who are new to the world."

 

In other words:

• Step 1: Become a god.
• Step 2: Run errands for lesser beings.

👏 👏 👏 Exactly. Why waste a game that took X amount of hours to achieve the end result with...oops you get reset, now do it all 10 more times.

I guess that was the week someone slipped them all Magic Mushrooms at Bethesda, and to top it off being an Errand Boy is one of my least favorite things in any video game let alone an entire game made up of the same.

I was reading of the positive review numbers being down on Starfield. 

[Jarnin]

11 hours ago, nIn nIn nIn said:

 

I seriously doubt this. 100% pure speculation unless you can show me the interview where a BGS developer specifically stated this.

Doubt whatever you like. There are references in the CK to asteroid belts that are not in the game. Practically every system had at least one, and some had two or more.

[DocClox]

I'm guessing what got cut was free in-system flight.  No point in an asteroid belt if you can't go there.

[Jarnin]

14 hours ago, DocClox said:

I'm guessing what got cut was free in-system flight.  No point in an asteroid belt if you can't go there.

Asteroid would have worked exactly like they do now; the destructible asteroids spawn around a celestial object in cells that go around the object's periphery. When you travel to said object, you end up in one of those cells and the game randomly generates a destructible asteroid field for you to shoot at. An asteroid belt would have been composed of several large, Deimos-sized rocks (which you can't land on) at different locations in the same orbit. If you wanted to travel to one, you'd click the asteroid, get the same cut scene you get now traveling between planets, and then you'd arrive surrounded by asteroids.

 

So, why were they cut? It was immersive, open world content that wasn't required by any of the quests or systems in the game. Asteroids are one of many sources of inorganics, and implementing all those rocks and fields in practically every system wouldn't have been a quick gig, it would have taken weeks or months. So they cut them. Maybe a modder will add them back when the devs finally finish the CK features.

Edited July 22, 2024 by Jarnin

[aslab]

On 7/19/2024 at 12:16 PM, Miauzi said:

 

Unfortunately, the very first stupidity doesn't allow that at all:

You float in the planet's orbit without actually being in an orbital orbit... no change in position relative to the surface.

This isn't even "space" opera - it's bullshit.

And of course you jump using grav-drive into a collection of asteroids in the immediate vicinity of a planet - which of course don't seem to have a relative speed to the planet either... so they are quasi-stationary less than 10-20,000 km above the surface.

 

I haven’t played this game yet so I am writing in the dark. But I think it would be easier to make the planets spin vs giving the asteroids a rotational path. If the planets spin, one feels like they’re in orbit when they are stationary, moving along with the asteroid belt. When in motion they will break the orbit, but the asteroids will still look to be orbiting.