A Starfield remake, of sorts, has been created in 48 hours, incorporating seamless travel between planets, something missing from the actual Bethesda RPG.
A Starfield remake, of sorts, has been created in 48 hours, incorporating seamless travel between planets, something missing from the actual Bethesda RPG.
I think Bethesda “fanboys” (like myself) just really like the core experience (warts and all) I play NMS when I want to lose myself in a beautiful seamless scifi setting and i play starfield when my focus is on engaging with faction and character storylines and some campy space encounters. I kinda like how janky bethesda games can be, reminds me of playing tabletop RPGs and all the weird janky shit that happens in those games too. I like that I can be the golden boy of the crimson fleet and still join up with the freestar rangers. I make up a little story for my character and act it out and have a lot of fun doing so.
The only thing I could do without is the loading screens. I don’t mind that landing on a planet isn’t seamless, but i mean… loading screen to get on ship, loading screen to get into space, loading screen to fly to different planet, wait until scan finishes, loading screen to land on planet.
That’s the worse part for me. If it was just a short cut scene for landing on a planet, I think that’d be 100% fine.
I just don’t think it’s good to let a company get away with not improving.
The small improvements they have made in Starfield are alright, but it feels like the bar was set with Skyrim and they can’t even really match something from 12 years ago.
I do not have high hopes for TES VI and I’m half expecting something extremely dated, as based off FO4 and Starfield I think the studio’s best days are behind them at this point.
Starfield seems like a pretty stark improvement over Fallout 4’s shortcomings, so I don’t think it is fair to say that they aren’t improving. Just looking at my own playtime, I bailed out of Fallout 4 at the 20 hour mark, but I’m 60 hours into Starfield and haven’t slowed down at all.
Or maybe game development is just hard? Why haven’t other “better” developers created a game that improves upon Skyrim?
Look at Baldur’s Gate 3. It’s “small improvements” to the type of game that Larian has been working on for many years at this point.
In what way? There are plenty other RPGs that I prefer over Bethesda games.
…and honestly, some of those are old school ones. I feel like there’s just some things always missing from Bethesda’s newer titles.
I’m not really talking about preferences. I’m asking more about the niche that games like Skyrim/Fallout/Starfield fill. If it is so simple to just make “Skyrim but better” or “Starfield but better” then where are all the games from other developers that are just that?
Or from another angle. Where is the Path of Exile for Skyrim?
Yup. People will always bring up some games like Witcher 3 as “better than Skyrim” and in terms of the roleplay elements within the story? Sure. Do the games have some similarities? Sure. They’re both open world RPGs in a medieval fantasy setting. But beyond that, the comparisons fall apart. Somebody just looking for any RPG experience might well prefer Witcher 3 over Skyrim, but somebody looking for another Skyrim experience is not gonna find it in Witcher 3. Same goes for comparisons for NMS and Starfield. Does NMS have seamless planetary flight and Starfield doesn’t? Absolutely. Can you scan plants and wildlife in both? Sure. But, again, beyond that the comparisons fall apart.
I don’t even like skyrim BG3 is objectively a much better game, least Bethesda can do is esspecially with the funding they got from Microsoft is not sell skyrim again but with a space reskin this time
deleted by creator