Mediocre Arachno-Lad
Member
I still have no clue what the hell you're trying to say.
Any examples?
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Is Cyberpunk much better than Starfield?
- Thread starter BootsLoader
- Start date
Any examples?
EDMIX
Member
Stop fucking using random users to project shit.
When did I personally say any of this in that post?
Its also a game in a different setting then what you listed...
And?
That is still different then what Mass Effect 3 is, sooooo in 2013 its sounding like that game would be more unique to the landscape because this wasn't a thing we got a ton of.
So yes, procedurally generated space game in 2013 would have been a big deal to many as what other game in that setting would be doing that to compete with them?
Adding in "derrr coPy-pAsTeD" doesn't fucking change that in 2013, that would have had an appeal based on how few titles used that tech then, you keep forcing your feelings or opinions on title instead of actually trying to understand how gamers would view this title without the existence of other IP that released after 2013 that would make what Starfield is doing today in 2023, less "new".
So just because you are use to it now and dislike it now, doesn't mean that 10 years ago THAT would have been the view point by the majority. Thats like me saying 10 years ago people would hate Battle Royal Games cause I HATE them today, and be like "derrr pAyz To wiNz, boRinGZ" and then keep forcing that view in the subject as if the fucking is about your feelings on the genre.
I cannot disregard its popularity, i cannot disregard that in 2013 this was a relatively new idea, that in 2023 is now a dated idea. No Man Sky, ED, Star Citizen and many more over the years, gamers enjoyed those games, it now puts deep pressure on Starfield to do more and give a more different experience. If it released in 2013, that couldn't factually be the case, as what other game would be compared to it where you are flying in space, going to planet, docking ships etc? This game set itself far away enough from Mass Effect that I don't see how that title would hurt it.
Mass Effect 3 moved 7 million units in its lifetime....
Starfield move 6 million in about a week or so and now has 10 million players (no clue the unit count) and this is fucking AFTER another Mass Effect game, No Man Sky, Elite Dangerous, Star Citizen eternal beta etc
Imagine releasing in 2013, with none of the above and the only reference we have, is Mass Effect 3, the game more limited and lessor then Starfield when it comes to freedom, flight etc. It would likely move even more millions of units since it would not have No Man Sky or something to even compare it to.
So...I'm sorry bud, you have not really given enough for me to buy this game would be seen as dated in 2013, not only would it have a market, I'm willing to bet it would have been a bigger IP BACK THEN, then right now as it would be releasing setting the trend, not following it.
You seem simply too interested in forcing this projected view of calling people Fanboys, sir....that is literally not what the Starfield fans have been calling me when we were talking about its review score to fucking really think that is why I'm telling you this. For that, we have to give you this ignore. Let discuss the facts, not your feelings on "fanboys" as I can't argue with you on shit I never said, based on shit you fucking read OTHER PEOPLE say.
Have a good one.
AutumnLeaves
Member
Gaiff
SBI’s Resident Gaslighter
EDMIX
Member
Why would it matter?
I don't see how the setting or genre being that different would change that tbh. You'd have to explain to us how that couldn't work cause we are having a hard time understanding how Starfield could not have the same complex web.
Someone in the ship tells you that they were hiding in the cargo bay when they heard pirates come and kill everyone you now have to make the choice on whether this person is simply a victim or maybe he was the killer himself. You then find out there's another survivor hiding somewhere.
You ask the child who this person is to you and is he part of your ship and what happens everyone here, They tell you that he was one of the pirates but he was the 1 that was trying to save everyone and didn't want to hurt anyone so they left them on the ship by himself and broke the controls and that he was actually trying to help.
You and your party now must make a decision of course the survivor story goes a long way but then again this man was part of the pirates that even did this.
- A. If you choose to kill him, The child will feel bad that the only person that tried to help the situation you killed but will go along with your crew.
- B. If you choose to keep him alive and bring both of them with you to safety on your ship, You find out that he is eore of a reformed pirate and knows all sorts of tricks to getting inside of ships undetective and becomes a valuable asset.
You drop the girl off at the nearest space station until the authorities about the event. ( You have another series of choices on whether or not you want to tell them the pirate on your ship was involved)
Later on the pirate reveals that he didn't know his crew was going to kill everyone and thought they were just on a mission to steal cargo. He tried to stop them and when they felt he wasn't really one of them they broke the controls and left him to die on the ship.
No disrespect how the fuck does this setting being in space somehow stop that from being a thing in this game where such a choice is feasible cause I'm having a little bit of a hard time understanding why in a "simulation" choices cannot be made.
So you telling me this game would be better with no
- A. Throw the bitch out an airlock
- B. Keep the bitch
lol
Last edited:
Mediocre Arachno-Lad
Member
Where did I say you personally said that?
Settle down, ok?
It's sci-fi. You don't have to be so desparate with splitting hairs, dawg.
Did you miss the part where Mass Effect 1 did that to the same capacity in 2007? And actually did it better, since you could navigate those planets on a rover that was pretty fun to control.
The first Elite did that, along with a seemless simulated galaxy in 1984. Parkan did those things in 1997 as a first person action game. There're plenty games in the last 30 years to which Starfield doesn't compare favorably, including Bethesda's own titles. Not as an RPG, and especially fucking not, as a "space game".
Now, battle royale? Comparing game unit sales of 2013 to 2023? In the most fast-growing entertainment industry? The fuck are you on about? Did I scramble your brain or something?
You've officially lost the plot and just rambling random shit, hoping some it sticks.
GHG
Member
GHG
Member
Honestly, it's starting to feel like some of these guys only started gaming on the Xbox One and pretty much only play games that are exclusive to that platform and/or are on gamepass.
I get he wont have had the opportunity to play BG3 yet because it's yet to release on Xbox, but both Divinity OS games have the exact same systems in place when it comes to choices/actions/consequences and how they can manifest in the game world across a single save file.
These sorry dudes just need to play more games and broaden their horizons, it's as simple as that really.
Last edited:
Unknown Soldier
Member
EDMIX
Member
Agreed.
What is insane, is its not even like Fallout 3, Fallout NV or Skyrim etc didn't have choice and consequences, those games 100% had those types of elements for anyone to really be asking why Starfield doesn't.
I think anyone making such RPGs should be considering making many choices based on BG3's reception.
Why would i hate the idea of being able to select a choice to throw someone out of the airlock? lol
GHG
Member
That's harsh on Titanfall.
This is actually the most frustrating element in all of this. Bethesda have progressively been dumbing/watering down their RPG's from Oblivion onwards and we have now arrived at a point where Starfield barely shares anything in common with Morrowind as far as the RPG/immersion elements go.
Frankly it's inexcusable, so how anyone can say this is their best work with a straight face is beyond me. It barely classifies as an RPG (funnily enough, I also said that about Fallout 4 at the time of it's release and Starfield is even worse than that).
mcjmetroid
Member
Hmmm one is available on playstation and the other isn't. I'm not sure you're going to get a fair response on this one haha.
Unknown Soldier
Member
Same problem that Final Fantasy XVI had actually
I have zero sympathy for Starfield after the same influencers and shills tried to bury FFXVI for the crime of not being on Xbox
FalsettoVibe
Member
thegame983
Member
Cyberpunk is much better. And I enjoyed Starfield.
BigLee74
Member
He was wrong about the Crimson Fleet quest. You get chewed out by UC SysDef the first time you kill innocents when undercover (what he highlighted), but do it again and you get jailed and banished by UC SysDef, who then become your enemy and attack on sight as you have chosen the pirate life. You then have no option to see the quest through as a pirate.
This then forces your companions to question your motives (Did you just want the money? Are you just an evil bastard?)
If you’re gonna rant like a looney in a video, it helps to get your facts right and make sure you are correct!
Edit: Also, whilst doing this quest: 1) I ratted out a guy who was helping me do an early mission. He got thrown out the pirates and swore to avenge me. I was then duly jumped by him and a gang in space at some point later in the game. 2) I befriended certain other characters who then came back to help in the final big battle on that quest chain (which is pretty much exactly his point in how BG3 was so much better in this regard).
Last edited:
Ansphn
Member
Never thought I see the day where Bethesda is no longer in the top 10 open-world RPG developer. Starfield is supposed to be game of the generation, 25 years in the making, Howard's Magna Opus...and now I'm hearing a 3 year old broken game was and is better than Starfield will ever be.
Last edited:
vaibhavpisal
Member
Difficult to explain if you don't see it.
Do you see difference in AI between something like Dishonoured 2 and something like Last of Us 2?
Both on surface look the same. Stealth based games where AI tries to find you, then engage in combat once they do. Yet one is called Immersive sim while other is action game.
Reason being TLOU2 AI has only one state, aggression. It sweeps the area, tries to find you. Then attack you once they do. If you disarm them or kill them, it plays out accordingly.
In Dishonoured 2, AI has many states. How high is your wanted level, where are you standing, what action did you took (eg hacking their machinery).... it makes calculation based on these, what action it wants to take. That's why it's called Immersive sim. Easiest way to see this is while fighting clockwork soldiers.
Bethesda games use immersive sim style AI. Whatever action you took, once the result of said action drops in middle of them, they decide what action they wanna take. Whether to run or fight someone, or whatever is suitable.
This different from text based choice you take in other RPGs, cause you see results of your actions unfolding in front of you.
It having different types of game design makes all the difference.
Having a Baldurs Gate 3 style complex web in Starfield style RPG will take forever to play test and stabilise. Nobody can make it.
Only someone who doesn't understand how both games work will put them head to head in a direct comparison like this.
Pimpbaa
Member
Why do people blame Creation Engine for bad faces and animation when user made mods have been fixing that since Morrowind? It’s clearly a talent problem. One they had for a very long time (in regards to character modeling and animation). A new engine isn’t going to suddenly make them good in the regard.
EDMIX
Member
Yet Baldur's Gate 3 exist.....
How did they do that?
Good things take time, if it will take a long time, its worth it to do. Look at Cyberpunk, they rushed that shit right out the door in 2020, yet BG3 went into early access...know why? Cause it wasn't done, sure it will take "forever to play test and stabilize" yet in 2023, its BG3 that is getting the praise for being as good as it is and Cyberpunk having years of people making fun of it.
I don't wish to have Starfield in that bunch...
So...maybe with its sequel, they can look into having a return to those crazy choices like, choose this faction and nuke this planet. We care about how great the game can be as gamers, not how long it might take them to test it, if I knew they could have those choices in like BG3 and it would take 3 years....I'd rather not have Starfield this year.
I love what this team does, this is not against how great the game currently is, merely that is understood it COULD be better based on how we know they did those choices in the past. So I like Starfield enough to want it to be the best it can be, we both know it can have those elements as its not like Fallout 3 was made from some magic dust or something lol
LONG LIVE MEGATON! lol
vaibhavpisal
Member
Fallout 3 comparison is more apt. From what I am hearing, it should be comparable to Fallout 3.
Baldurs Gate 3 should be compared to games like Wasteland 3. If you wanna compare it to first person/ 3rd person games, then Bioware games are more comparable.
Mediocre Arachno-Lad
Member
Oh I see the difference.
Dishonored 2, like all Arkane games, has dogshit AI, TLOU 2 easily topples it. Both games have the same AI states of idle/investigate/alert/combat, but TLOU 2 plays all of those out much better, in all aspects. You're confusing a simple high/low chaos system for something complex going on under the hood, but there's literally nothing else there.
It's not AI that makes Dishonored an immersive sim, but a consistant interactivity of the environment. Emergent gameplay.
You know, something that Baldur's Gate 3 also excells at. Which, I feel, is the most understated aspect of the game.
People celebrate Baldur's Gate 3 as an instant classic CRPG. Meanwhile, it's also one of the best immersive sims out there, second only to Prey 2017.
Saying that as someone who loves immersive sims, and despises tabletop-inspired diceroll-driven bullshit in my games.
Trying to fault BG3 for lack of simulated systems is a fool's errand.
Uh-huh.
Last edited:
geary
Member
Best AI in game is still in FEAR...
Here's a paper done on MIT based on the AI from FEAR.
https://alumni.media.mit.edu/~jorkin/gdc2006_orkin_jeff_fear.pdf
Here's a paper done on MIT based on the AI from FEAR.
https://alumni.media.mit.edu/~jorkin/gdc2006_orkin_jeff_fear.pdf
vaibhavpisal
Member
Baldurs Gate 3 has some level design that resembles immersive sim, that I have seen. Yet to play it, so can't comment on AI, if it's simulated style that responds to a variety of situations.
But it's choices play out like a text based RPG. I have seen some gameplay videos. Doesn't look like Bethesda style RPG.
EDMIX
Member
I mean, even that simply can't be.
I do wish it was like Fallout 3's choices like major stuff a nuke destroying a town or planet, but clearly it can be more.
So I don't think BG3 should only be compared to Wasteland or something in this respect as what we are talking about has no relevance to firstperson or 3 person or anything of the sort and Bioware clearly is not the only one that can do this.
So I wish it was like Fallout 3's choices AT THE BASE, it must be beyond Fallout 3's over all and branch out into more choices like BG3, because after generations between Fallout 3 and Starfield, why would I strive for them to be only as good as the choices from a game from 2008?
I want them to be as great as they can and the existence of BG3 very much argues they too can have such a web of choices. So they are comparable because choice exist in Starfield, my only argument is more of it can't hurt this IP or this concept, it can only help support its overall narrative and replayability.
edit. and as someone that is 40 hours deep in Baldur's Gate 3, let me remind you those choices are not solely based on a "text", this isn't a visual novel.....thats like saying you have text options in Starfield, so...its "text based", I don't think you fully understand what we are saying.
The choices in BG3 can have a character
- live or die.
- A character join your party,
- a character go to the city of Baldur's Gate cause you saved them and now they have missions for you.
Why the fuck would that be different in Starfield?
You can live or die, a character can join your crew or not, a character can go to a different city in the star system and be like "thank you for saving me from that lost space station, I have a job for you to thank you"
Stop man.
I don't fully understand why you though what we were talking about was like a visual novel. Yes...text is used to pick a choice, but shit that is the same thing in Starfield lol It is not just picking a simple thing that ONLY shows itself on "text", it will determine a character living, dying, joining your party etc.
What we are staying isn't exclusive to 3rd person, or first person, or simulations or anything you've been talking about.
So as someone that has played both games, as someone that has played all Bioware games and all Bethesda games and all Larian games....nothing you are bringing up has to do with what we are talking about here, BG3 merely has more choices that branch out to do more things. I see nothing in Starfield to say they couldn't do the same thing as we are not really debating a genre type thing (they are in the same genre....), we are saying we wish Starfield had MORE choices.
It already has the very thing you are debating right now......we are saying we wish it had more lol
Last edited:
vaibhavpisal
Member
Yes, this how Baldurs Gate 3 plays. I understand the web of choices.
It's inherently different from nuking a town. Or freeing Madanach in Skyrim that causes entire town of Malakath to riot.
You don't get a web of choices in BGS games. Instead you have entire towns participate in an event.
That's how they are different and cannot be compared.
EDMIX
Member
Nuking a town is merely an example, it is to show you choices can clearly exist with Bethesda's games.
lol stop man, they very much can be compared.
They have choices and effects from those choices, Starfield can have those same choices.
Because they are different, doesn't fucking mean THEY HAVE TO BE DIFFERENT 100%, that it makes zero sense and argues in favor of being inferior solely based on the idea of what they did in the past.
This is not 2008.
Such an excuse cannot fly and it simply makes no sense to argue in favor of less choice, less complex, less variety and less realism in regards to how humans make choices.
Saying that both games are different is fucking moot, that is the point we've been making btw, they are different in areas where Bethesda should be excelling in.
As in, from Fallout 3 nuke Megaton based on a choice
should EVOLVE TO
Starfield nuke planet based on a choice.
fuck you telling me? That would be bad in Starfield? Less is better? Dumbed down is better? The natural progression of their titles suggest that would be a concept that fits right in with Starfield and Bethesda should 100% be taking a strong look at what Baldur's Gate 3 is doing and their first DLC should be looking to implement those types of choices in the writing.
I don't even see how it benefits them TO NOT have more choices seeing the success of BG3, so if you love Starfield, shit you should want it to be striving to be the very best.
FinalBossWithTheMostPower
Member
I'm a few missions into Phantom Liberty, but will reaffirm that Cyberpunk 2077 is one of the greatest games of all time.
Shame that this is the only DLC. Night city needs more vertically, quests, and a greater population density.
Not sure if I'll ever go back to Starfield, it's whack.
Shame that this is the only DLC. Night city needs more vertically, quests, and a greater population density.
Not sure if I'll ever go back to Starfield, it's whack.
vaibhavpisal
Member
Since I have not finished either games I feel it's pointless to discuss this any further.
I want Bethesda to strive for best. But it becomes easier to criticize them when games compared don't function in same way.
I wouldn't hesitate to compare them after finishing them, but if someone points out a game that works differently and want BGS to make a game that would match that other game, it's simply not going to work. And there is good reason for that.
Frwrd
Member
Hell yeah, and that’s without even taking into consideration the new expansion.
I set my expectations LOW for Starfield in order to give it a fair chance in this hype-filled gaming industry that we deal with nowadays, somehow Bethesda managed to deliver an even worse game than I anticipated. It is beyond me how there’s still **”fans”** defending such garbage move by Bethesda. They deserve to get called out and held accountable, I wish modders didn’t fix their fucking games for the thousandth time.
GHG
Member
You're clearly not understanding what's being presented to you here.
What you're describing all happens within a single questline where the consequences of your actions are telegraphed. The example scenario given in BG3 doesn't even manififest itself as a result of a quest playing out (in fact, the actions that he took in wiping out the settlement weren't the result of a quest at all, it was the outcome from a random interaction). It's an example of where doing something random and seemingly cometely unrelated can have huge ramifactions further down the road, unbeknown to the player at the time of carrying out those actions.
And the bottom line here is that you can't even do the same sort of thing (or have the same sort of outcome) in Starfield because of the fact that they give every single NPC that might have meaning/significance at some point protected status.
It's almost as if the developers both didn't trust the player, and couldn't be bothered to account for the number of possibilities random player interactions would and could result in. So much for "simulation".
Last edited:
BusierDonkey
Member
Starfield isn’t anywhere close to being as good as I’d hoped. I like it, but it’s so “safe” it’s almost offensive. The writing is legitimately terrible.
I haven’t touched Cyberpunk, but I’d be surprised if it wasn’t a better game.
I haven’t touched Cyberpunk, but I’d be surprised if it wasn’t a better game.
DenchDeckard
Moderated wildly
Playing lies of p right now, and it's better than both of them. Then I'll play balders gate 3 and that will be better than both of them, I imagine.
DenchDeckard
Moderated wildly
The best critique for me, is absolutely this. Starfield is SAFE. I really enjoy the game, but it is Bethesda making a Bethesda game and not pushing the boat out or risking anything. It's literally, this works..the fans love it...give them more of that. But, this can make it feel sterile in places.
Pure comfort gaming for fans like myself. It delivers everything a fan expects from Bethesda and what is there, that is more, is extremely safe imo.
Great game, a solid 8.5 out of ten for me. I love it and will be playing it for years but it's not a groundbreaking achievement in the genre, like I hear balders gate 3 is.
Last edited:
GHG
Member
How's this for snark?:
"he's wrong if I ignore all the facts presented to me".
Saddest thing about all this? That this scenario described in BG3 is one you would have had the opportunity to manifest in Morrowind, Oblivion, Fallout 3 and New Vegas. All previous Bethesda games. They've since streamlined almost every aspect of their games and treat their audience like dumb dumbs, removing as many as possible potential unintended questline fail states as possible.
As outlined, you cannot do the same thing (or similar) in Starfield because they don't allow you to. The end.
Last edited:
Tomeru
Member
You mellowed out.
Bungie
Member
While I went into this game with the expectation you can kill mostly everyone because it's a Bethesda game, I happened to remember that I experienced invincible NPCs more than I should have in Fallout 4 as well sadly.
My guess is that this is a new IP and it was a design choice but not a good one imo. Everyone I know who played starfield all had this quick save moment of what if i shoot this companion or NPC. All of us were disappointed.
Kill everyone mod will definitely be one of first mods I download once my main playthrough is finished.
BigLee74
Member
11:05 in your video. He loudly complains about only getting 2 lines of ‘bad boy’ dialog for some mission misdemeanours as if that is the extent of Starfield consequences. I’m simply pointing out that if you push that UC sysdef commander a little bit further, then the consequences ARE dire.
Maybe he should have brought a better argument to the table.
Last edited:
BigLee74
Member
Starfield commits the worst sin of all. Not only are some people invincible (where they drop down on their knees but always recover), others quite simply don’t react to being shot at all - I hate that stuff!
vaibhavpisal
Member
You clearly haven't played the game and going on about it like an expert.
Slow down a bit ... lol.
Baldurs Gate 3 like web of choices were never present in Bethesda games. They were in New Vegas cause of different developer.
But Obsidians brand of role playing has always been worlds apart from Bethesda.
MidGenRefresh
*Refreshes biennially
Much better. Game is harder and it takes longer to get completely OP plus enemies scale to your level. Most hacks are now traceable so you can’t just spam it from the shadows.
Windom Earle
Member
Ass of Can Whooping
Member
Give it another week and you'll be joining us cool kids and shitting on it
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll
- Poll