For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki
Rules:
i think starfield looks just as uninspired and boring as the next guy, but i think we should take player retention with a grain of salt on linear single-player games. of course people are less inclined to continue playing when they’ve finished the main quest
anyway play resident evil 2 remake
I played and beat the main quest for both Skyrim and Starfield, and I thoroughly enjoyed both games. And while I agree that Starfield has things to complain about, I enjoyed the plot much more in Starfield. I'm a big sci-fi nut, so that helps, but once I finished the main quest in Skyrim, I didn't feel the pull to go any further.
In Starfield, I'm still loving all the side quests, and NG+. And although the ship builder is clunky, I love modding my ships.
I'm glad Bethesda finally came up with a new IP. I really don't get all the backlash.
I actually went back and replayed Vanilla Skyrim this year because I found myself enjoying Starfield more than Skyrim, and I'll back you up. Starfield's quest design is more complex, more apt for roleplaying (multiple options for each major questline so you don't have to be a psychopath to play both Companions and Dark Brotherhood), and general RPG design, but the world design is more lacking than Skyrim.
I'm glad to know somebody enjoys it. I found it quite dull.
Wait. It didnt help that Bethesda argued against reviews that said the game isnt fun by arguing "Yes it is fun"?
Playing Starfield, and actually enjoying a good part of it, like the faction quests, side quests, radiant quests even, and the increased roleplaying potential, then seeing a huge backlash against it, made me replay Skyrim, Vanilla, in 2024. The results may shock you!
The TL;DR is that Skyirm only beats Starfield in world interactivity like NPC schedules, and the percentage of gameplay you interact with that's hand-crafted vs procedural.
Comparing the faction quests of, say, the Dark Brotherhood and Crimson Fleet, you must play the Dark Brotherhood as a psycho assassin, while for the CF, you can be a fed, a brutal pirate, or someone walking that line, with your own background added for flavor.
The quest design in Starfield also gives more options, as well!
This overall means that, IMO, Bethesda game design itself is kind of shit without mods.
World interactivity is one of the most important things in open world games. Starfield is just completely empty
I don't disagree. However, some of the absolute worst aspects of Bethesda games, like roleplaying mechanics, quest design, and more were actually improved in Starfield. BG3 still smokes it, same with New Vegas, but it's also much better than Skyrim with those respects.
That's why it's interesting.
And because many of the sites you find on a planet are just RNG, there's not much visual story-telling, either. Which is one the things they've always done pretty well until now. It's just a place to find loot with no actual context or story behind it, which makes the exploration little more than "oh hey, there's something here."
It lost me after 20-something hours sometime during the week after release. What a pile of shit
Starfield was so bad people consider The Outer Worlds to be a better Bethesda RPG in space, try telling that to someone in 2022.
The outer worlds was so much better than starfield in every single way. Better gameplay, world and companions.
The Outer Worlds was good, though...
The anticapitalism and queer are good, but the gameplay is repetitive
Its just kinda plain.
I'm playing through The Outer Worlds now. I'd consider it more enjoyable than what I played of Starfield. Gives me Borderlands vibes with Bethesda dialogue.