Anyone who wants to downvote or yell at me over this feel free, but whoever buys Starfield on release is an idiot. Why? Because it is a Bethesda open-world game.
Now, I have sunk ludicrous hours into Bethesda games. But, for decades what has held true about Bethesda games is:
Each successive release removes RPG elements, and simplifies plot stuff
They are crazy buggy on release (including reintroducing bugs that were previously seen and identified, I'm looking at you FO4 vertibirds having the same bugs as Skyrim dragons)
Mods are what give them their legs.
Now, debating #1 is not really doable at the moment since Starfield isn't out (but what has been released of the character creation information is thoroughly unimpressive IMO). But, for anyone not expecting this game to be ridiculously buggy on release, I'll just refer you over to Internet Historian's summary of Fallout 76. And for the mods, while Todd has said mod support will exist I still want to see how things break down with creation club vs non-creation club mods, and even if we assume the mod scene ends up looking like the TES and Fallout games that will still take time.
If Starfield turns out to be junk, I'll just pass on it.
If Starfield turns out to be good, I'll give it 6-12 months, pick up the GotY edition with all the DLC (which we all know is coming), and by that point the worst bugs should be patched (either by Bethesda or the Unofficial Patch), the script extended will be out and basic quality of life mods should be there.
But there are no reasons I can see to pre-order it (or pre-order any games TBH) or buy it on release.
I'll be honest I'm just not that excited about Starfield. Even the prospect of them making TES6 I just don't really feel anything. It's almost been a full decade since their last game so that well ran dry years ago
If there's enough of a backlash against Starfield (Say, the amount that cyberpunk 2077 got), I think it might also pay into dragging down TES6 - I wouldn't be surprised if this game fails to make a franchise as it's a new IP and I still remember that there was already a lot of people who were pushed away when it was heard that they were using the buggy old creation engine rather than getting a new one, on top of the announcement being right on the heels of 76.
Me personally, this just isn't my kind of game at all. I think it will be another release that I find more joy in talking about than actually playing. Maybe if TES6 builds the same modding community skyrim did, I could give it a shake, but right now Bethesda's reputation precedes that.
I don't even think it's going to be worth pirating, do you know what Starfield's greatest crime is? Really most of these new games, they're boring and there's nothing worse for a game than to be boring especially with the amount of money they spend on these games nowadays. Even by today's standards as well I feel like mechanics are getting dumbed down to the extreme and it's clearly part of their way of making games as 'accessible' as possible to the average person which means making them so easy a 5 year old could play through it.
That's bugged me about open world games for a very long time. Not that I haven't played them but it seems in a lot of cases it takes away from the game for me for it to be open world. I think in some ways it's better as a linear game, but in one spot instead of a cutscene with a minute to explain how you got on a truck to go from A to B or a limited outside area, they left it open, added some boring things around to do, and a pretty little dotted line to tell you where to go next if you don't want to do the boring things. But they added some very useful items in the boring things so while you can skip them you might not want to.
Every open world game I've enjoyed (especially past 5 years) really left me alone with a lot less guidance. It's boring following a GPS to the next objective.
I’m a huge Skyrim fan (still playing and downloading mods) but I think I will wait a bit before getting Starfield. I may get ES6 on release date though.
I read u/ACertainFellow’s comment as sarcastic, because OP opens with “Anyone who wants to downvote or yell at me over this feel free,” and then proceeds to give the most normal, in-line with this board take that I could imagine.
“I know it might be an unpopular opinion, but I’ll stand by it: does anyone else think Nickelback is bad??”
I don't recall skyrim or fallout 4 being in an unplayable state at day one. Playing it at launch shouldn't be a problem for a day one game. Now if it where online only and a popular mmo I'd sing a different tune. I think you are being a touch over dramatic. Will it be a trash fire requiring third party intervention? No question. Will it be a brick of code and impossible to play??? I think it will at least be playable. Remember, Steam can refund if you aren't happy.
As I understand, FO4 did have some nasty launch bugs, but generally not gamebreaking, and hit a relatively small number of players. As I said in another comment, these things get blown way out of proportion.
Although there's some truth to "Bugthesda," it's mostly just a meme, and not representative of the average user experience.
Personally I expect Starfield to be great in some instances, disappointing in others. Looking forward to playing it, though.
There was one particularly irritating bug that I recall which did stop me from playing a few times was the load in glitch. You know how assets pop in to reduce load strain? Well, it would always reach a point where the pop in would just sorta... give up. So every fucking texture would just be this muddy ugly mess. It was pretty awful. Only ever experienced it on PC.. I think.
Other gripe I have is how fucking essential it is to use an SSD. Every fucking building just had to be its own instance, so every time you loaded back into the open world (because you WILL casually click on an exit door) you will pay a life force tithe. A long fucking wait time where you have to sit there for what feels like an eternity. How anyone tolerated it on a PS4 is a complete mystery to me.
...So every fucking texture would just be this muddy ugly mess. It was pretty awful. Only ever experienced it on PC.. I think.
Weird, sounds like such a thing would be more likely to occur on consoles. I guess it all depends on the game.
Other gripe I have is how fucking essential it is to use an SSD.
To be fair, and I hate to sound all "you all have phones, don't you?"...SSDs are kind of a big deal in general now. Also, cheap, and easy to install. Everyone who does want to do relatively modern gaming should probably have an SSD. I agree it's annoying when it clashes, but honestly I'd rather games be made with modern technology in mind, then limiting to support older tech. SSDs have made seamless and open worlds games more accessible, so more companies are willing to ship them.
It's amazing, really. This is on my mind, because I'm currently (and agonizingly) looking into upgrading from my ancient computer. I think I got a 250GB, a 500GB, and a 1TB SSD, spaced out over the years, for around the same price each, as tech improved. Now I'm looking to get a 2TB M2 drive for again the same price. Point is, nowadays SSDs are super accessible. Although Fallout 4 was (wow) almost a decade ago, so it was certainly at least slightly different back then.
I was thinking the same when I first read this thread. I had Fallout 4 at launch and it was fine. Maybe things I just didn't notice? I played it quite a bit the first two weeks. Honestly, that was perhaps the last game I was actually excited for the launch of. Has no bearing on Starfield for me, I'm not buying it anytime soon and I'm not even sure I want it.
I just have this little voice in the back of my head (that may or may not sound a bit like Todd) that begs the question, where are they going with it. With how much everyone just keeps fucking up space sandboxes; what will Bethesda's spin be, and how hard could they fuck it up?
I'm so skeptical of any game now, especially a high price AAA game. They've just all gotten so much worse. I mentioned Red Dead Redemption 2 in here, because that was a big turning point for me. That was the last AAA game I bought full price at launch. It was also the last straw, I just didn't like it. The list of AAA games I would recommend others play since then is tiny even though I have eventually played a decent amount (heavily discounted).
I might break my rule in a few weeks with The Crew: Motorfest. That's a bit of a special case as I play those type games with a young family member and I will pay more for relationship building. Still, they are doing something really interesting. They are offering 5 hours of unrestricted gameplay for free on launch weekend. Ballsy move if you ask me.
I've always wondered how gaming devs manage their source because they seem to have a lot of regressions. Which makes it seem like they have many branches and don't do continuous integration.
Anyone who wants to downvote or yell at me over this feel free, but whoever buys Starfield on release is an idiot. Why? Because it is a Bethesda open-world game.
Now, I have sunk ludicrous hours into Bethesda games. But, for decades what has held true about Bethesda games is:
Each successive release removes RPG elements, and simplifies plot stuff
They are crazy buggy on release (including reintroducing bugs that were previously seen and identified, I'm looking at you FO4 vertibirds having the same bugs as Skyrim dragons)
Mods are what give them their legs.
Now, debating #1 is not really doable at the moment since Starfield isn't out (but what has been released of the character creation information is thoroughly unimpressive IMO). But, for anyone not expecting this game to be ridiculously buggy on release, I'll just refer you over to Internet Historian's summary of Fallout 76. And for the mods, while Todd has said mod support will exist I still want to see how things break down with creation club vs non-creation club mods, and even if we assume the mod scene ends up looking like the TES and Fallout games that will still take time.
If Starfield turns out to be junk, I'll just pass on it.
If Starfield turns out to be good, I'll give it 6-12 months, pick up the GotY edition with all the DLC (which we all know is coming), and by that point the worst bugs should be patched (either by Bethesda or the Unofficial Patch), the script extended will be out and basic quality of life mods should be there.
But there are no reasons I can see to pre-order it (or pre-order any games TBH) or buy it on release.
You pretty much nailed it. Starfield looks like it's got alot of potential, but this is a 'buy after a year' purchase for me, if ever.
I'll be honest I'm just not that excited about Starfield. Even the prospect of them making TES6 I just don't really feel anything. It's almost been a full decade since their last game so that well ran dry years ago
If there's enough of a backlash against Starfield (Say, the amount that cyberpunk 2077 got), I think it might also pay into dragging down TES6 - I wouldn't be surprised if this game fails to make a franchise as it's a new IP and I still remember that there was already a lot of people who were pushed away when it was heard that they were using the buggy old creation engine rather than getting a new one, on top of the announcement being right on the heels of 76.
Me personally, this just isn't my kind of game at all. I think it will be another release that I find more joy in talking about than actually playing. Maybe if TES6 builds the same modding community skyrim did, I could give it a shake, but right now Bethesda's reputation precedes that.
I just watched the internet historian- NO WAY has this company learned from that disaster.
And no way do they deserve my money
I don't even think it's going to be worth pirating, do you know what Starfield's greatest crime is? Really most of these new games, they're boring and there's nothing worse for a game than to be boring especially with the amount of money they spend on these games nowadays. Even by today's standards as well I feel like mechanics are getting dumbed down to the extreme and it's clearly part of their way of making games as 'accessible' as possible to the average person which means making them so easy a 5 year old could play through it.
That's bugged me about open world games for a very long time. Not that I haven't played them but it seems in a lot of cases it takes away from the game for me for it to be open world. I think in some ways it's better as a linear game, but in one spot instead of a cutscene with a minute to explain how you got on a truck to go from A to B or a limited outside area, they left it open, added some boring things around to do, and a pretty little dotted line to tell you where to go next if you don't want to do the boring things. But they added some very useful items in the boring things so while you can skip them you might not want to.
Every open world game I've enjoyed (especially past 5 years) really left me alone with a lot less guidance. It's boring following a GPS to the next objective.
"it's greatest crime is its boring" oh yeah? How many hours do you have in it so far? None? Interesting
I’m a huge Skyrim fan (still playing and downloading mods) but I think I will wait a bit before getting Starfield. I may get ES6 on release date though.
Oh snap, hot take here
edit: /s
forgot that sarcasm communicates terribly over text, whoops
I read u/ACertainFellow’s comment as sarcastic, because OP opens with “Anyone who wants to downvote or yell at me over this feel free,” and then proceeds to give the most normal, in-line with this board take that I could imagine.
“I know it might be an unpopular opinion, but I’ll stand by it: does anyone else think Nickelback is bad??”
I don't recall skyrim or fallout 4 being in an unplayable state at day one. Playing it at launch shouldn't be a problem for a day one game. Now if it where online only and a popular mmo I'd sing a different tune. I think you are being a touch over dramatic. Will it be a trash fire requiring third party intervention? No question. Will it be a brick of code and impossible to play??? I think it will at least be playable. Remember, Steam can refund if you aren't happy.
As I understand, FO4 did have some nasty launch bugs, but generally not gamebreaking, and hit a relatively small number of players. As I said in another comment, these things get blown way out of proportion.
Although there's some truth to "Bugthesda," it's mostly just a meme, and not representative of the average user experience.
Personally I expect Starfield to be great in some instances, disappointing in others. Looking forward to playing it, though.
There was one particularly irritating bug that I recall which did stop me from playing a few times was the load in glitch. You know how assets pop in to reduce load strain? Well, it would always reach a point where the pop in would just sorta... give up. So every fucking texture would just be this muddy ugly mess. It was pretty awful. Only ever experienced it on PC.. I think.
Other gripe I have is how fucking essential it is to use an SSD. Every fucking building just had to be its own instance, so every time you loaded back into the open world (because you WILL casually click on an exit door) you will pay a life force tithe. A long fucking wait time where you have to sit there for what feels like an eternity. How anyone tolerated it on a PS4 is a complete mystery to me.
Weird, sounds like such a thing would be more likely to occur on consoles. I guess it all depends on the game.
To be fair, and I hate to sound all "you all have phones, don't you?"...SSDs are kind of a big deal in general now. Also, cheap, and easy to install. Everyone who does want to do relatively modern gaming should probably have an SSD. I agree it's annoying when it clashes, but honestly I'd rather games be made with modern technology in mind, then limiting to support older tech. SSDs have made seamless and open worlds games more accessible, so more companies are willing to ship them.
It's amazing, really. This is on my mind, because I'm currently (and agonizingly) looking into upgrading from my ancient computer. I think I got a 250GB, a 500GB, and a 1TB SSD, spaced out over the years, for around the same price each, as tech improved. Now I'm looking to get a 2TB M2 drive for again the same price. Point is, nowadays SSDs are super accessible. Although Fallout 4 was (wow) almost a decade ago, so it was certainly at least slightly different back then.
I was thinking the same when I first read this thread. I had Fallout 4 at launch and it was fine. Maybe things I just didn't notice? I played it quite a bit the first two weeks. Honestly, that was perhaps the last game I was actually excited for the launch of. Has no bearing on Starfield for me, I'm not buying it anytime soon and I'm not even sure I want it.
I just have this little voice in the back of my head (that may or may not sound a bit like Todd) that begs the question, where are they going with it. With how much everyone just keeps fucking up space sandboxes; what will Bethesda's spin be, and how hard could they fuck it up?
I'm so skeptical of any game now, especially a high price AAA game. They've just all gotten so much worse. I mentioned Red Dead Redemption 2 in here, because that was a big turning point for me. That was the last AAA game I bought full price at launch. It was also the last straw, I just didn't like it. The list of AAA games I would recommend others play since then is tiny even though I have eventually played a decent amount (heavily discounted).
I might break my rule in a few weeks with The Crew: Motorfest. That's a bit of a special case as I play those type games with a young family member and I will pay more for relationship building. Still, they are doing something really interesting. They are offering 5 hours of unrestricted gameplay for free on launch weekend. Ballsy move if you ask me.
Never even heard of it until seeing this thread. Maybe I'll try it out in five years.
I've always wondered how gaming devs manage their source because they seem to have a lot of regressions. Which makes it seem like they have many branches and don't do continuous integration.
Not that I've never broken anything.