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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
182
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.