I must say it is not the best RPG out there, but I feel like it would have earned more. I personally have a lot of fun playing.

While it was not a Cyberpunk-grade overhype, I think it must still have been overhyped. Because if you see it as Skyrim with better graphics, it is pretty much what you’d expect.

Some of the common criticism seems to be intrinsic to the sci-fi genre. In Skyrim, you walk 100 meters and then you find some cave or camp or something that a game designer has placed there manually with some story or meaning behind it. And as a player, you notice that, because most locations in Skyrim feel somehow unique. Even though for example the dungeons have rooms that repeat a lot. Having a designer place them manually with some thought gives them something unique.

In interstellar sci-fi, a dense world like this is simply impossible. Planets are extremely large so filling them manually with content is simply not possible. And using procedural generation makes things feel meaningless. Players notice that fast. So instead, Starfield opted for having a few manually constructed locations that are placed randomly on planets, unfortunately with a lot of repetition. But that is a sound compromise, given the constraints of today’s game development technology. The dense worlds that we are used to from other genres simply don’t scale up to planetary scale, and as players, we have to get used to that.

  • Roggie@mastodon.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    @dan1101 agree totally, I didn’t see how good the dogfighting was until I had an actually difficult fight (for the Key ifykyk) where I was completely out of ship parts and direct confrontation would lead to instant destruction. Before I would just fly at the enemies, face tank and repair, killing them pretty quick. That shit didn’t fly for this fight. I had to get super creative in using objects (and even other hostile ships) as cover while my shields came back up, using hit and run tactics.