37
votes
Bethesda release three Starfield anime-style promotional videos
Starfield: The Settled Systems - Supra Et Ultra
Starfield: The Settled Systems - Where Hope is Built
Starfield: The Settled Systems - The Hand that Feeds
After a few weeks of silence on the game, Bethesda's launched a set of quite charmingly-nostalgic anime styled videos, as an exposé on 3 of the big cities within the game: New Atlantis, Akila City and Neon.
I've been trying to satiate my hype for the game so even this little tidbit is a welcome surprise.
Tbh, I was super excited despite the known factor of Bethesda jank... then I read no DLSS and, well, I can wait until it's $30
That is… a very specific reason to not buy a game.
From the look of it they’ve spent a ton of time polishing this release, maybe having learned lessons from previous unpolished games.
The game doesn't look very demanding so I don't see a lack of DLSS really being a dealbreaker here. If it had ray tracing features then I would be a lot more concerned, since DLSS is pretty much required to get performant results on older or lower-end cards.
Gotta be honest. I don't think I've ever played a game with DLSS support. NVidia should stop touting it as a selling point for RTX cards until they can make it apply to games automatically (or at least make it far easier for developers to add to their games).
It may also be that most games just aren't demanding enough to need it. If you have the hardware required to use dlss then you probably have the hardware to not need it outside of the few games actually also using raytracing. Cyberpunk 2077 and now baldurs gate 3 are the only games I've played that have it.
I haven't found a game demanding enough to even think about it needing dlss that wasn't that way specifically because of raytracing.
I do agree it's weird that nvidia makes such a big deal about it.
I very much enjoy Frame Gen for fluidity reasons, so long as the base rendering rate (native or with DLSS) is >90 fps the hit to input latency varies from quite acceptable to imperceptible for me. I was a child of the high refresh rate CRT era and have always tune my machines for frame time consistency first, then optimizing for the highest FPS possible.
For me, anything that doesn't run 90FPS or 11ms frame time 99.9 % of the time isn't going to be enjoyable to the point where I'd spend time on it, let alone money. From what I understand this game won't run >60fps period.
Well... I have readily inferred you aren't too familiar with the "state of the art" in that regard. So ...shrug emoji
What’s the state of the art?
You do you. tbh & applicable to this complainer only, I can't be bothered with mods tunless it's something truly grand like Fallout London. I can't tell you when I last installed a mod but it was probably back in the aughts.
Installing them.just to get "AAA" game to run? Well, that's another non-starter Ia expecting put of this.
I've made mods off and on for Bethesda games since oblivion. It's absolutely insane how many potentially game breaking bugs Bethesda ships and just hopes it won't come up in a regular play through.
Skyrim especially has a ton of unoptimized scripts with almost random or sometimes nonexistent terminating conditions that just result in save bloat, or eventually save corruption.
I get it. It works good enough, but I feel like after the years of work put into stuff like unofficial patches, they should at least consider including the community effort as an official update? Or at least stop shipping the same engine bugs 7 games in a row that we have to fix the same way every time.
They really didn't have many employees back in the Skyrim days (100 people).
I felt vanilla FO4 was... say 4x less buggy than vanilla Skyrim. I'd hazard to guess Starfield will continue to improve and may even be in an acceptable release state.
I hope so. FO4 was improved, though I didn't play it as much as elder scrolls. Performance was horrendous for a while, but I don't remember as many huge bugs. I am still really excited about starfield. Don't take my annoyance at their bugs as meaning I don't like the games. It just gets frustrating when I've fixed the same problem in multiple games over 15 years.
FO4 did seem less buggy than previous games but for me it was the one game of Bethesda's where I encountered a kinda game breaking bug. I say kinda cause you could play around it but it prevented me from continuing on the main quest or entering a section of the map (PC players could get around the main quest part by being able to use console commands to load into the building you needed to get into. Us console people had to walk to it though and that meant if the bug was around the building you needed to get to you were SOL). They did fix it for many people including my game on console (but not all and I believe it cause I played FO4VR when it came out and encountered the bug again (way after they released the one fix for it). This time though it was in a different area and I found a save game that wasn't corrupted with it and kept a backup in a seperate folder in case it showed up again <- the bug would corrupt saves in the same folder as the save affected).
Fallout 76 would be a bit of a combo breaker for that trend, no?
Different kind of game, not to mention it wasn't even the same team working on it.
Got any examples of unoptimized scripts?
Here's a small compliation of script fixes
Thanks, you beat me to it lol. Ferrari was specifically who I was also going to link to as an example of script fixes. The amount of lag and false save corruption they have prevented in my heavily modded setup is at least worth mentioning.
As someone who started playing Skyrim last year, apparently my rule with Bethesda games is to wait 11 years to buy them.
In (somewhat) seriousness, I highly recommend it. I think I got Skyrim, Skyrim SE, whatever creation club bundle they offered recently, and 11 years of mods - total cost was $5-10 if I remember correctly.
And after playing Skyrim and learning about how Bethesda tends to operate, I would absolutely never purchase a new Bethesda game. It's quite obvious that they rely on third parties to make their games functional. (Hmm, reminds me of something else that happened recently.)
I still don’t understand the hype for Bethesda games. Fans have been let down in numerous ways for so little innovation or real change in their games. The negatives far outweigh the positives with any Bethesda-developed game. Difficulty and challenge are still tied to bullet-sponge health modifiers. The AI is abysmal. Bethesda has always created games like this. I really don’t understand how people are still so hyped for anything Bethesda.
Check out r/skyrim. They have 1.5 million people still chatting daily about it. You may not like Bethesda games, and your points are valid reasons why you don't, but plenty of people still do.
I still love Skyrim, I can play it blindfolded, and after years and years of playing and living in 3 US states and 11 apartments/houses, it feels like home, bugs and all.
I just did a play through last year and clocked another 60 hours or so. Still holds up and I had a great time!
Aside from the fact that people are just having fun playing it there isn't really another developer that makes games in the same niche of "easily moddable, huge open-world sandbox RPG".
If there were other, better games that scratched that same itch I'd agree with your point, but there just aren't.
As a very new player of Skyrim (within the last year,) who in turn became interested in learning about the relationship between Bethesda and its customers/modders - I'm pretty sure that people actually dislike and resent Bethesda for the most part, and to some extent, they dislike the games too. I've never played vanilla Skyrim, but I can't imagine I would enjoy it.
People love the massive communities, and therefore mods, that come with Bethesda games. Bethesda has not only created some beloved franchises, they have allowed people to do what they want with them, and there have always been enough people interested in doing so.
People like Bethesda games because other people like Bethesda games, and people who like Bethesda games decide to make mods to make Bethesda games better, so more people like Bethesda games, so more people make mods. Rinse and repeat.
I recently binge-watched PatricianTV's series of lengthy videos on the Elder Scrolls games after Morrowind. The realization that Bethesda had been coasting on fanbase goodwill from Skyrim for over a decade, and decided to reward that fan base with some of the laziest and most disrespectful horse-armour tier guff in the form of the Creation Club, ended things on a rather sour note.
Bethesda had one of the most incredibly talented and dedicated modding communities any developer could ask for. But I guess the AAA games industry can wring the life out of any good thing, because money can't be left on the table.
But Creation Club was essentially there to extend mods to the console players. As a PC player, I've never bought a mod from the Creation Club, only donated to modders I liked.
His two part Skyrim review is great even though it's 20 hours.
His Fallout 76 review is great too.
I love watching videos about the history of the Elder Scrolls series, even though I've only played Skyrim. There's just so much to dig into, from the lore, to the technological advancements that occured as the series went on, to the random drama between Bethesda, players, and mod authors.
One of my favorite random fun facts is that the map of Daggerfall is literally the size of Great Britain, which I believe was quite unrealistic to accomplish in the mid 90s. Unfortunately, the issues with broken games (requiring the players to fix them) had already begun - players not only worked on fixing the game, they created the mod framework for Daggerfall themselves too. And it's just endlessly fascinating that people are still fixing and recreating Daggerfall to this day, almost 30 years later. I know other games (old and new) get modded, but Bethesda games seem to be on another level.
Totally agree with you on the bittersweet nature of the Bethesda modding community. It's very cool how much of a labor of love it has been over the years, but it does feel like it never got the appreciation of deserved from the company. The whole Creation Club debacle was very strange. I tried to use the CC mods when I was playing on PS4 since they were easy to download, but they're garbage, essentially none of the player homes are even usable because they eat the items you leave in them or aren't even visible on the map due to bugs. I believe I didn't really pay for them because it came in a bundle, but it's outrageous that Bethesda has charged money for those mods. Just bizarre.
I've played Skyrim since launch exclusively on my 360. Zero mods. And besides dlc, my 360 has never been online or received any updates.
You may not enjoy it, but other people do, and that's okay.
Oh sure, I completely understand that people play vanilla Skyrim, it's just that it seems fairly rare, and the popularity/quantity of mods is so astounding that many people are playing a version of "Skyrim" that barely resembles what Bethesda originally made. So when that commenter asked why so many people like Bethesda games, I just feel like the answer is partially that people like the framework they give for customization, more than they like the company and their "finished," unmodded games, at least nowadays. I guess my main point is that Bethesda has really damaged their reputation and many people are skeptical about Starfield, like the person I responded to, but people are going to love and play it anyway, particularly because they're going to mod it to oblivion.
Curious, do you actually play it without even using the unofficial patch? Even when I played on PS4 I downloaded that right away because I heard the game is somewhat unplayable, or at least quite buggy, without the unofficial patch. Could be a bit of an exaggeration, I've never played it without.
Ps4 is a generation ahead of Xbox 360, so as far as I know, since no modding is available on 360, I've been playing the vanilla version of vanilla Skyrim.
And look, I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying that plenty of people, believe it or not, enjoy it. I know about the many bugs, but even if it has to be modded unofficially, there's still something from Bethesda, over a decade later that people enjoy.
I'm not fan boy or corporate shill, I'm just a gamer in his 40s who likes what he likes. To say that bethesda offers nothing of substance through, is just a little naive.
Thats my opinion, I don't need to be right! My favorite game ever is ff6 on snes.
Take ot or leave it.
Cheers!
Other than Fallout 76, which was a trainwreck, what has Bethesda released that has been a let down? Skyrim is literally one of the most popular games in the world over a decade after release. There is a lot of things you can critizize them for but they do have an overall good track record for making games people enjoy. They make huge worlds that are fun to explore, there isn't an abundance of developers doing that. Maybe their games just aren't for you?
While I did enjoy Fallout 4, I'd say Fallout 4. It was a disappointment. I mean they already were going in that trend (of not really doing much rp in the RPG) but Fallout 4 seemed like the game people warned about when they bitched how Bethesda was "casualizing" games (from Obsidian through Skyrim) each game and watering down the rp. I'm glad 4 got a lot of blowback from that so they seemed to realize they could go too far but I would say 4 was a let down (especially as a Fallout game which started out as a deep rpg. I don't mind them making it less deep for the action part but 4 was just overboard not a good compromise at all in that direction).
Agreed. Fallout 4 was a huge letdown in the RP part of things, and the world was also arguably a step back. I want to like it, mechanically it's a huge step up from FO3: Settlements are interesting (though not without issues) and the gunplay is so much better than FO3. But a disappointment nonetheless.
However, and maybe I exist in a bubble of YouTube video essayists, I think Skyrim has gotten a huge chunk of criticism as well. As the novelty has worn off, I find that the issues with "casualizing" skyrim have gotten more prominent. People expect better RP from skyrim and they've been saying it. I'm very cautiously optimistic that Bethesda has heard the message, and maybe they've even acted accordingly.
And then there's the part of my brain that's completely basked in high-grade hopium that thinks that maybe Bethesda is really doubling down on some innovative technologies. Maybe NPCs in Starfield can, supported by ProcGen and some Neural Magic, have a proper conversation with the player, even if zero actual writing went into that NPC. Just a few facts in a database that was generated during worldgen, that the neural net can draw from. The vision of Morrowind's dialogue system, except today it's actually achievable.
Oh I remember them criticizing Skyrim. That's why I said people were complaining about Bethesda casualizing games (from Obsidian to Skyrim) and said Fallout 4 was the culmination of that. I've never played Morrowwind and I loved Skyrim (it was actually my intro to Bethesda games) but I did see a few videos outlying why they disliked skyrim in comparison and I had to agree that it at least sounded better how they did Morrowwind at least from a want more rp in your game. And I've played Fallout 3 which was definitely a more in depth roleplaying game than Skyrim even (not saying it was deep in itself, just deeper than Skyrim).
I guess I just don't understand when people say that they are disspointed that they are watering down the RPG elements in their games as of late. There hasn't been "true" role playing in any of their games since Morrowind, which came out over two decades ago. Every game since has had an emphasis on exploration/combat. Their titles sell well and generally get pretty good review scores, so I don't know why anyone would expect a deep RPG out of them anymore.
People have been bitching about it and using Morrowwind as the example if it makes you feel better. They aren't happy that the rpg elements have been watered down since Morrowwind (you heard it a lot more the first year or so Skyrim was out. It seems people have forgotten and now Skyrim is ok and it's just Fallout 4 that is the issue). That's why I said watering down since Oblivion - Fallout 4 (It keeps getting more and more watered down. I know 3 was more of an RPG than 4 even). But if you look at each game (save 76 which was not trying to be rpg at all and I consider more an offshoot) since morrowind each has been getting lighter and lighter on the rpg aspects.
I'd still call them RPG but 4 is barely there for it. I still can create a character and give it a personality and play that character in Skyrim (4 is a lot harder to do so but I find even modding out the pc voice helps a lot in that.... tone in how people say stuff matters a lot when it comes to personality).
I don't expect a deep RPG, but I want an rpg out of them. Honestly, I would be ecstatic (though I don't expect it as Obsidian wants more RPG out of their games then Bethesda) if they got to NV levels which I still wouldn't consider super deep but to me is a great compromise between more live action gameplay and RPG elements.
Given the breadth of character customization already shown, it looks like we're at least at NV levels; you can pick stats and a background for yourself, which moves away from FO4's limited, gender-locked choice of lawyer or soldier with no game relevance.
It does appear they have definitely reversed course... but I'm going to hold off on that judgement til I get the game. But if they manage to match NV in roleplaying aspects, I'll be shocked and ecstatic (I never expected that out of Bethesda, felt I'd be looking for a let down if I did. I was thinking more realistically Fallout 3 levels would be nice to see them go back to).
I mean NV is my favorite game ever because it mixes what I love about Bethesda games and adds in the thing I wish they did better, a better mix of rp into the live action gameplay. So if they manage to do that with Starfield, I may find my new favorite game ever grin.
I'll give you it barely qualifies but I still think it hangs on as an RPG. But, I will fully admit I was disappoitned with it as an RPG (and a Fallout game). I did enjoy it as a game, especially when they put out survival mode which kinda made up for the lack of RPG. But I'm very glad it seems they got enough backlash from how watered down it was to reverse course (we'll see how much when Starfield comes out). I just wish Fallout didn't have to be the guinea pig for all the stupid changes that watered it down as an RPG for them to learn.
And while I haven't played Morrowind you can see the watering down of rpg elements gradually happening from Fallout 3-Skyrim-Fallout 4 (each game was a weaker rpg than the game before it... not sure I can say that about Fallout 3 and Obsidian or Morrowind, whichever it was in between but Skyrim was weaker than 3 and Fallout 4 was weaker than Skyrim which already was a weak RPG).
Yeah. Their games just aren't for me.
The best Fallout game was New Vegas. I think that statement alone tells you a lot about me.
I'm not trying to convince anyone. I just can't stand the combat in any of their games--it's some of the most awful combat of any kind in any game I have played. Play a game like Dark Souls or any other game that has a gun that you can aim at people. Bethesda just doesn't know how to do anything right except creatively construct worlds.
Maybe an interesting exercise is, think about a game that you really like that some other developer made. Now imagine if Bethesda had been given the blueprint for it and had instructions for making that game. What do you think the result would have been? Remember: they're putting that world, those mechanics, into the Gamebryo engine with their knowledge of that engine.
Yeah I would love them to improve the outdated combat they push into their games (which was outdated even back when Oblivion/Fallout 3 came out honestly). I just have given up wasting energy over it and enjoy them for what they are now. I do still think they still do provide some top tier exploration / environmental story telling, which is a big draw for me, personally.
Looking at the combat in the gameplay deep dive, it feels way less stiff than what existed in prior games. I don't know that it's good, but it feels pretty ok?
More than just exposing a few of the cities, it also gives a feel of different individual's paths to the stars. Military pilot, tinkerer, thug... everyone's path can lead up and out if they're ready for it.
I'm just not excited for this game. I really should be though, love Star Trek, love mass effect, love Star wars, anything sci-fi I have a huge love for, but this? Idk, the fact that consoles will run at 30fps at 1080p, lack of modern features on PC like dlss and fsr, and an expected amount of absolute jank as is the Bethesda way, just doesn't get me excited. Starfield looks like it is quite literally fallout in space.
I don't understand the excitement and hype that I've seen for this game. It looked...stunningly unimaginative in terms of environment design and colour, particularly for something that's supposedly been in the works for so long. And Bethesda's strength sure isn't in quest or character writing, which leaves I don't know what. More power to the people who are really into it, I guess, but there was nothing so far that looked remotely as vivid and eye-catching as what was on display in The Outer Worlds, or as interesting as the conflict on display there (though I feel like that game didn't totally stick the landing). I can't figure out what's up, and it makes me wonder if I've just missed the main trailer or the most exciting gameplay video.
I liked the Outer Worlds the first time I played it (never finished it) but I tried it again recently and I really couldn't get into it. Despite definitely being an RPG and Borderlands isn't, the art style/humor just seemed too Borderlands and right now I really just don't want that (I did enjoy Borderlands 2 but I think a lot of that is due to the Handsome Jack and his voice actor... outer worlds just really didn't have any char never mind main focus char that was that charismatic).
I honestly really like what I saw of Starfield. Personally that's more what i want in an outer space game (I loved the idea of NMS and I enjoy it but i never really cared for that overly colorful/70's space game art style). A little more colorful/interesting than Elite Dangerous but more down to earth than NMS or even Outer Worlds. Only thing I am not as big on but they've grown on me is the ships (I would prefer more Elite Dangerous or Star Citizen Style but that's cause I kinda want my spaceships to look a little plane like <- I know not all ED ships are like that but there are some).
Here's what has me interested in it: it's a more neutral canvas for modding. Skyrim is set in a particular historical tradition in a corner of an established world. Same with Fallout 4. Starfield is set across thousands of worlds with a much more flexible framework for buildings, weapons, vehicles, etc. There's no reason you couldn't drop the entirety of Tamriel or Earth in the Fallout universe onto some random planet somewhere. Even if Bethesda screws the pooch regarding basically every bit of content, the framework plus mods will give thousands of hours of play.
For me the realism is the thing that makes it exciting from my perspective. It looks like a solid RPG set in a future Earth where we’ve colonised some of space.
The combat looks smooth, the planets look interesting and I think it will feel like what I thought No Mans Sky would be.
In the case of Outer Wilds, despite being rather shallow outside of main quests, it also felt sometimes like it was trying too hard, and not just letting a natural fantasy world(s?) unfold.