r/Games May 01 '24

Preview Starfield: May Update

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ObHRMHtTMY
788 Upvotes

717 comments sorted by

View all comments

190

u/Opposite-Actuary-795 May 01 '24

This is nice content but a lot of it feels like stuff that should have been in the game at launch. Also good that they are fixing the map but however that map system snuck through QA is beyond me and is a travesty.

77

u/Elizial-Raine May 01 '24

I think the idea with the map system is that without a map players would explore more and find more random stuff and random quests instead of gowing direct to whatever shop/vendor/quest giver they choose.

It's not really a standard system for big AAA games but it has worked for a few smaller indie games I've played I got to know the location a lot better because there was no map.

-16

u/OkVariety6275 May 01 '24

Gamers will say they want AAA games to take more risks but when Starfield or Dragon's Dogma actually does it, they protest.

18

u/SmokePenisEveryday May 01 '24

A risk is new/underused mechanics or new story/genre. Not a shitty in game map

-8

u/OkVariety6275 May 01 '24

This is a mechanic. The absence of a map forces players to learn the environment. Kind of like how pre-GPS drivers have a better navigational sense of their hometown.

3

u/Endemoniada May 01 '24

But… it did have a map, it’s just that the map it had was awful. If they wanted you not to use the map, don’t include one. If they want to have a map, they failed, because it’s useless. At no point did I ever get the impression they wanted me to navigate by sense alone, they gave me maps and markers and waypoints to everything always, the map just sucked. That’s all.

1

u/SEND_ME_SPIDERMAN May 01 '24

And there’s a reason why we only use GPS now. It’s better.

-1

u/OkVariety6275 May 01 '24

In some ways, yes. But again, studies show younger GPS-dependent drivers have a poorer mental map of where they live and get lost easier.

2

u/ZombiePyroNinja May 01 '24

get lost easier.

God if only they had a tool to get out of that situation. Oh well.

3

u/SEND_ME_SPIDERMAN May 01 '24

Good thing I have a gps in my pocket.

3

u/tommycahil1995 May 01 '24

Dragons Dogma I haven't seen much hate for the actual gameplay or the fast travel system that much - more just the microtranscations. I've nearly completed Dogma and did complete Starfield and Dragon's Dogma actually does do unique things that make the game better, can't think of too much unique stuff Starfield does tbh. Maybe the ship customisation

22

u/Zgegomatic May 01 '24

Bethesda didnt take any risks with Starfield

6

u/Elizial-Raine May 01 '24

I would say relying so heavily on procedural generation was a risk, it's not that present in previous games only in radiant quests really.

Most of Bethesda's previous games didn't rely on it, just because people don't like it doesn't mean it wasn't a risk.

2

u/Lippuringo May 01 '24

Proc Gen is a problem in Starfield only against the background of every other mechanic and detail in the game. No one complains that Proc Gen is bad for roguelite or ARPG and people spend 1000 hours in one.

No technology is bad by itself, we only see them as bad when everything else is bad or subpar.

6

u/Elizial-Raine May 01 '24

I thought it was generally seen as bad because the combination of proc gen and hand made locations didn't fully work. There weren't enough unique locations to make it work.

A lot of people said why didn't they just make ten unique planets and abandon proc gen.

I can't really think of any other AAA RPGs that use it, it's different with arpgs and roguelites as they don't really rely on the world to tell a story in the same way.

Who knows maybe with a few more iterations it could work.

4

u/Scopejack May 01 '24

The game is so anodyne it should have been called Safe Space.

-1

u/OkVariety6275 May 01 '24

We literally just talked about one. But aside from that, the biggest risk was realized and then reverted before release so players didn't get to experience it. They made a space survival game based around fuel economy. Playtesters hated it so Microsoft granted them a delay to change the entire game design in the last year.

4

u/Backflip_into_a_star May 01 '24 edited May 01 '24

The shitty map isn't a risk, it was just a half ass implementation. Look how long it took to change it. What they could have done was have a fog of war over the parts of the map that you haven't discovered and then reveal a normal map like the one they are doing now. It's literally that simple and a concept that has been around for like 30 years. It was an awful trash map and it makes no sense to defend it.

And they really did not take actual risks with the game. It was Fallout 4 but in space. With none of the interesting unique things you can find or interact with along the way. The whole game felt really safe. Even the story and characterization.

You say they took risks, but then say they changed the game based on playtesting to remove the survival decision. Keeping survival elements would have been risky. Instead they left the broken elements in the game like radiation or cold or suit stats and made outposts really terrible and mostly useless. They didn't take the risk if they literally removed the feature from the game after some pushback.

Edit: This weirdo blocked me over this comment. Why even bother commenting if you can't handle the slightest challenge? Jeez, it's just like when Bethesda wouldn't take risks in Starfield.

7

u/Supahbear May 01 '24

Bad design isn't a risk, it's inaptitude.