Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
The vocal minority is busy trying to convince everyone the game is a failure but its already been massively successful. The first ES game wasnt massively successful either, it took years of sequals and improvements to get to where it is. To compare them would be like, lets see where starfield is when starfield 6 comes out.
And many many folks consider Skyrim a massive step back from Oblivion.
/shrug
But it is reasonable to compare Starfield to other 'open world' games from the same company. Starfield didn't have to do worse than they did. It just didn't.
That formula which is completely missing from Starfield?
Skyrim has been out for 10+ years and has been remastered like 50 times. It wasnt a masterpiece when it launched.
I dont think starfield is a masterpiece either. I give it an average 6-7/10 and have plenty of criticisms for it. But that isnt the point.
Fact is a lot of people are really enjoying it as did i in my 100 hour playthrough. Its already been a success. What happens next is, well we will see but name a BGS game that didnt get better over time?
There is a huge difference in exploring a single map, as opposed to entire solar systems with different moons and planets, and there was also a clear difference in how BGS developed what can be explored.
I have now played the game for over a 100 hours, and the biggest flaws I see with the game is:
1: The scope of the game. BGS went for quantity over quality. BGS have somehow gotten the wrong idea, that what people liked is for their worlds to be grand, big, overly sized maps that takes several minutes to traverse - this really is the wrong take. Size can be good provided that you manage to fill it with worthwhile, handcrafted content to do. But if you can not, it is better to leave it smaller and more detailed. BGS should have stuck to a couple of few solar systems, five at most I would say, and then make the explorable moons and planets far more detailed with handcrafted content. More systems could always be introduced with expansions or by mod creators.
2. They have not tried to disguise loading screens, at all. I for one understand BGS' necessity for loading screens, just due to how BGS games usually function. You will rarely see open world games with several loose items laying around that are not nailed to a table, a shelf, or the floor. No, in BGS every items have physics attached to them, and there are a lot of those items laying around. But BGS could have tried to disguise more of the loading screens. The fact that the grav-jumping is not disguised with a "third person" 'travel through a light-tunnel' is a... surprise to be sure... but not a welcome one.
3. They have been too afraid of locking people out of content, depending on their choices. Despite the inclusion of NG+. You should not be able to be a member of a good-aligned faction, while also being a member of the Crimson Fleet, and reverse, it just feels weird. I can agree with the fact, that this can be left entirely up to the players at the end of the day, I rather see Bethesda implement gameplay mechanics to show the consequences of such choices. Could you roleplay yourself hiding the fact that you are a Crimson Fleet member? Sure... but eh.
In terms of gameplay and roleplay mechanics, I actually find that Starfield is a step forward from Skyrim and Fallout 4.
But above three points really sets the game back, and the third point was a problem back in Skyrim too, and it was only a tiny, itsy, bitsy, bit better in Fallout 4 where you eventually had 5 different factions you could join. Raiders and Minutemen cancelling each other out, though not permanently.
Most other complaints about Starfield, I just find to be asinine and whiny. All the crying about being 'fish bowls' and not being able to circle a moon or planet without a loading screen. Seriously, that is just the most ridicolous.
I can see a point in complaining about repeated POIs though. It is just not what I see as a very big problem.
Both games have console versions but I don't even think you can track console users like you can Steam so I can ONLY use Steam as a metric.
Skyrim:
This is the original, not special edition:
Peaked at 287,411 players on Nov 10 2011. By the 21st of June 2012 it dropped to 39,658 then had ups and downs until it flatlined at the end of 2016. On Jan 5th 2012 111,504 players which is the 'almost' 2 month period which is about a 39% player drop in 2 months.
Starfield:
Peak at 330723 on 31 Aug 2023, 260,877 on 14th September 137,428 by 28th of September, 82,41 in October 12th to 52199 players by the 26th of October.
In 'almost' 2 months, Starfield saw a decline of 84% from the peak.
I dont see your point. The game has already been a success. Folks have played it and moved on until its improved/mod'able more.
Are you just straw man'ing an argument or do you have a point?
Skyrim lost 39% from peak in 2 months while Starfield lost 84%. If you don't know what my point is then that's a you problem. Also stop using the word strawman. I spent 10 minutes gathering this data cuz I was trying to make a point, not strawman.
What is your goal? The game has already been a success. You are intentionally ignoring every question and point i give you. Starting to think you are just a troll.
Like who cares the player count has dropped after everyone beat the game. Like all BGS games, it will get better over time and have ups and downs.
All you provided were numbers without context(incomplete numbers at that).
How many people do you think stopped playing because their rig wasn’t up to snuff, as opposed to skyrim?
You make a conclusion based on very limited data which is why your point isn’t an actual point
After putting well over 300 hours into this game I can say it's just a bad game. The main issues are it was shoe horned onto consoles which lead to a lot of unnecessary loading screens and the game being cut up like it is. But even if that was not the case the story is bad, the quests are all fetch or kill quests even the main one, the writing is terrible, the loot system is terrible, vendors have next to no cash, 99.9% of the games content is just reused assets that I have now seen hundreds of times.
The outpost system is completely worthless and ship building and outpost building is clunky as all hell as it features locked cursor building and stupid snapping, this was again clearly designed for consoles as it makes using the system possible with a controller but makes it outdated and clunky to use on pc as your left using your keyboard and not your mouse for most of it. The game is empty 96% of the planets could be removed and nothing of value would be lost.
The game is also the buggiest Bethesda game ever they just only gave paid shills or reviewers they knew would lie for them copies before release. Microsoft needed this game to make money and so did bethesda after failout 76 and redfall both failed so they basically lied to the potential buyers and had those lies reinforced by paid shills. All in all it's an ok per alpha quality game made by a developer well beyond it's prime and worth say $25 to $30 maybe the full $70 to $100 in 10 years when it's closer to what was advertised or modders fix it for them.
It just requires the one thing the internet does not and cannot have:
Patience.
by that metric Fallout 76 is a better game at 74% and this is literally the only Bethesda game where fast travel is the only travel, like even FO 76 had a better feel cause i could go for a short walk and bam im going to find something new star field is just bad game design, like people are calling this an open world game like there is one big map it doesn't its a bunch of tiny maps that get generated though a seed when you land in an area oh let throw in few "handmade" sections of map just so little wanks can say "UMMMM actually there are handmade planets"
Did you read the post title? I'm trying to talk about how people are losing interest in the Bethesda formula and used statistics from Skyrim compared to their most modern game of Starfield. That's literally the whole point of this post.