Bethesda's Starfield

[naednek]

Kinda weird how the GMG pre-order deal is timed? Maybe that was a term of being able to sell keys - that they couldn't keep it on discount until August or something? Maybe that's common for other games too but I honestly don't remember seeing that - pretty much right up until it's released they have a pre-order discount.

I concur, I've never seen a GMG timed deal, although I haven't bought that many games from them lately. Really makes me want to think about it . Is this a "rush out and order it before it's too late" gimmick?

I'm sure it will be that price or more later too.

I ended up pre-ordering the premium version. I figured might as well since it includes the expansion and if it ever got pulled from gamepass I'd still be able to play.

[Grifman]

I pre-ordered, not I just have to wait

[Apollo]

Just in case you guys haven't seen this:

This is a Deep DIve into gameplay and shows a ton of actual gameplay footage. I'm getting pretty excited at this point!

[Smoove_B]

Yeah, I watched a highlight video of that highlight video (it was like 1/3 the length) and I'll admit, it had me much more interested than I was last week.

[Blackhawk]

I'm critical (Bethesda has really lost my trust), but I'm also very much looking forward to it.

[Kurth]

I just watched that whole video. If they deliver on what they're promising, it looks amazing.

Really, really reminded me of a more fully-realized No Man's Sky. Like, it almost looks like the same game at times, just more polished and fleshed out. I enjoyed No Man's Sky once they patched and improved it. A great experience for me, but I use that word carefully. I found No Man's Sky to be more of an experience than a game. I could lose myself playing it for hours but not really accomplish much of note.

Starfield looks like it promises to bring a Bethesda-like story to a space setting nearly as wide-open as No Man's Sky.

If that vision is realized, sign me up!

[Smoove_B]

Yes, that was my impression as well - it's like No Man's Starfield and that's potentially pretty cool. I feel exactly the same after playing NMS - did and saw so much, but I don't really get a sense of accomplishment without a more focused story or set of quests. But in terms of open world? It's amazing. If this offers a similar experience but has more of a narrative? Could be a winner.

[hepcat]

also, a game that allows me to pursue my real life dream of a sandwich based economy is long overdue.

[Smoove_B]

...but in space!

EDIT: Or maybe an astronaut version of NoHo Hank finding the best submarine sandwiches for everyone....

[Isgrimnur]

https://cecilbowen.github.io/pokemon-sa ... simulator/

[malchior]

Starfield looks like it promises to bring a Bethesda-like story to a space setting nearly as wide-open as No Man's Sky.

If that vision is realized, sign me up!

Same here. I had middling interest before I saw that video.

[Hyena]

Just pre-ordered. Had the $100 version in the cart but just couldn't pull the trigger on that one. Got the regular one, and I'll just opt in on released stuff as they come if it lives up to the hype.

[Daehawk]

I grabbed this off Bethesda's Starfield homepage through YT. Dont think its posted in here.

[Blackhawk]

I love when they do that. The three-minute "gameplay trailer" contained exactly 11 seconds of actual gameplay.

[Grifman]

[Grifman]

IGN’s Jeff Mcaffery got an hour hands on with the game (was able to load up saves at different times, locations, and player levels), the only non-Beth person I’ve heard of who has had this chance, and he came away pretty impressed:

[Grifman]

Summary of game play impressions in this thread:

[coopasonic]

People are gonna be playing Starfield for Yrs...yeah no joke.

So maybe 3 weeks to finish?

[Carpet_pissr]

People are gonna be playing Starfield for Yrs...yeah no joke.

So maybe 3 weeks to finish?

3 solid weeks of gaming is years for me.

[Max Peck]

I'd expect it to be like Skyrim. You can "finish" that in about 35 hours if you focus on the main story, but I know at least one person who has logged over 4200 hours.

[naednek]

OO is now old 15 years ago we all bought into the hype train.

Now with every game we all pessimistic

[Blackhawk]

OO is now old 15 years ago we all bought into the hype train.

Now with every game we all pessimistic

To be fair, the AAA gaming industry has changed a great deal in the past 15 years, becoming much more predatory, and Bethesda is high on that list.

In other words, we have good reason to be pessimistic.

[Kurth]

OO is now old 15 years ago we all bought into the hype train.

Now with every game we all pessimistic

I’ve totally bought into the hype on this one. As my kids would say, I’m a Starfield stan at this point.

[jztemple2]

IGN’s Jeff Mcaffery got an hour hands on with the game (was able to load up saves at different times, locations, and player levels), the only non-Beth person I’ve heard of who has had this chance, and he came away pretty impressed:

I watched some of this and have a couple of concerns. One, there seemed to be a lot of CoD type running and gunning. While I like the occasional firefight, my lightning fast reactions are now much more glacial so I'm hoping that this was just to demonstrate combat, not an indication of regular game play.

Second, that bit of psionic/Jedi-master "wave the hand and everybody floats into stasis" makes me wonder about the ultimate intent of that sequence. Is that what my developed character is going to be using instead of melee and/or firefights?

[Daehawk]

Maybe you've gained that ability from the alien artifacts you've been collecting and that power only works near or in alien ruins on a planet or alien ship derelict.

[Max Peck]

I'm too lazy to track down the source, but I read... somewhere... that id Software helped out on the shooty parts of Starfield. I expect that means that ranged (and melee?) combat will be a lot less janky than Bethesda's previous RPGs. Hopefully the player will have plenty of options to deal with problems other than just a lot of run-and-gun.

[jztemple2]

run-and-gun.

Thank you! I just couldn't remember that phrase, but that's exactly what I'm talking about.

[Blackhawk]

I watched some of this and have a couple of concerns. One, there seemed to be a lot of CoD type running and gunning. While I like the occasional firefight, my lightning fast reactions are now much more glacial so I'm hoping that this was just to demonstrate combat, not an indication of regular game play.

Second, that bit of psionic/Jedi-master "wave the hand and everybody floats into stasis" makes me wonder about the ultimate intent of that sequence. Is that what my developed character is going to be using instead of melee and/or firefights?

If it's like other Bethesda games, they're just options. It'll likely have straight combat as an option, stealth, diplomacy, and, apparently, psi.

Psionics are a sci-fi staple, so I'm fine with it in concept, but I hope they use it with some subtlety and not just turn it into spells 2.0/The Force. It could be used a lot of interesting ways that don't involve shooting lightning/flinging people around. A conversational option (like being able to sense emotion - "I can tell he's nervous and hiding something") or by being able to force someone into a decision, as a type of Peter tingle spider sense to tell you when there are enemies around, as a stealth tool (keep people from seeing you or create a hallucinatory distraction), as crowd control by showing someone their fears, etc.

[Smoove_B]

I am actually not excited about how the gun/ranged combat looks for this - it's probably my only concern. If it was somehow using the Fallout VATS model, it might actually be perfect. However, I guess you wouldn't be able to low-gravity jump and shoot enemies during your gentle return if it was VATS...

[Punisher]

I am actually not excited about how the gun/ranged combat looks for this - it's probably my only concern. If it was somehow using the Fallout VATS model, it might actually be perfect. However, I guess you wouldn't be able to low-gravity jump and shoot enemies during your gentle return if it was VATS...

Why not?
Jump, hit VATS key, target, return to real time.
Maybe even incorporate movement into VATS where you can key up a few things.

[naednek]

I am actually not excited about how the gun/ranged combat looks for this - it's probably my only concern. If it was somehow using the Fallout VATS model, it might actually be perfect. However, I guess you wouldn't be able to low-gravity jump and shoot enemies during your gentle return if it was VATS...

I'm sure there will be a mod for it.

[Blackhawk]

Or just use FO76's version of VATS (it's an auto-aim in real-time rather than a pause/semi-pause.)

[hepcat]

I've always found that version of VATS to be annoying.

[Blackhawk]

I've always found that version of VATS to be annoying.

I don't disagree in the least. It was one thing that really didn't need to be translated from the top-downs to the shooters - in any form.

[hepcat]

The version in the earlier Bethesda Fallout games were fun. They made you feel like a real gunslinger. But the real time version just felt odd.

[Blackhawk]

I still haven't gotten the hang of using the real-time version. The full-stop version worked, and was probably good for people who didn't play shooters, but I always found it to be way out of place and horribly overpowered. I avoided it after my first FO3 run. FO4 was a little better (it was slow-mo instead of full-stop, which meant that you could still take damage while in VATS, but I still never thought it needed to be there.

[Max Peck]

[Max Peck]

I wonder if there is some way to enrage the majority of PC gamers who are champing at the bit to play Starfield? Let's find out...

Starfield partners with AMD and oh boy, the internet is not happy

AMD has today announced a partnership with Bethesda and Starfield, arguably the most anticipated game of both 2022 and now 2023. And, in all honesty, it's not great timing for the red team considering it's been taking a lot of heat recently for its perceived blocking of rival upscalers from its sponsored titles.

And therefore today's announcement begs the question as to whether this means there's no hope of DLSS being applied to Starfield outside of enterprising modders once the game releases.

The nixxing of rival implementations is an accusation AMD hasn’t actually denied, but has skirted the question when asked whether blocking the likes of DLSS and XeSS are functions of AMD sponsorship. For its part, Nvidia explicitly stated that it "does not, and will not block, restrict, discourage, or hinder developers from implementing competitor technologies in any way."

Personally, I'm just enraged that PC Gamer has an editor that allows a writer to use "begs the question" when they actually mean "invites the question" although that phrase has probably gone the way of "literally" by now.

[Blackhawk]

I don't think the 'literally' comparison applies. I've been hearing 'begs the question' for decades, and I'd feel safe calling the phrase part of the common vernacular at this point. Common usage vs technical usage usually just comes down to accepting that the same things can mean different things in different contexts.

As to the news, I continue to have low confidence in Bethesda. They've got an unusual market position in that their stuff is so popular, and will sell so well regardless, that they feel safe making calls that will piss people off. Most of those people will still buy their games, completely forgetting how much they've screwed other people over in the past. If AMD mandated that they only support AMD features for sponsorship? Well, if they can make money by pissing off a few customers that will still buy the game? They'll jump all over it.

[Max Peck]

I don't think the 'literally' comparison applies. I've been hearing 'begs the question' for decades, and I'd feel safe calling the phrase part of the common vernacular at this point. Common usage vs technical usage usually just comes down to accepting that the same things can mean different things in different contexts.

That's literally what happened with literally, though. Once enough people misuse a word or phrase that most people understand what they mean, the battle is pretty much over. The Oxford Dictionary now includes a definition for literal that reads "used for emphasis or to express strong feeling while not being literally true" and a definition for begs the question that reads "(of a fact or action) raise a question or point that has not been dealt with; invite an obvious question."

All I was doing was making an apparently too obtuse "I'm old enough to remember when..." joke, not actually complaining about how the phrase was used. As in, I'm old enough to remember when people would complain about using beg the question for invite the question, whereas pretty much everyone is old enough to remember when people complained about using literally ironically. Hell, I was literally kicked off Quarter to Three for annoying Tom Chick by pointing out that the new usage for literally was literally in the dictionaries now.

Well, maybe not literally because of that, but it was the spark.