I love role playing as someone who is less bored than I am playing the game
esse jogo mostra o quão patética a bethesda é quando se trata de inovar seus titulos, um jogo chato, desinteressante, com mundos chatos, personagens chatos, mecanicas chatas, designs chatos. tudo nesse jogo é chato, tentei tentei e não deu, starfield é definitivamente o jogo mais chato que eu ja joguei.
Not as bad as they say, not as good as it could have been.
Most Skyrim and Fallout games released in an unfinished state, but during their times we were too blinded by their technological achievements to see it. Todd Howard must've thought that we would still be too blind to see it today, because Starfield is a lazy, unfinished and outright disrespectful entry to the industry.
Its progression is mediocre at best, the open world is fucking barren, traversal is needlessly tedious and -- on top of all of this! -- it has one of the worst stories/endings I've ever seen in a video game. There's also the poor optimisation, the plethora of bugs it launched with... the fact that some of you find something redeeming about this game astonishes me. Starfield is an objectively bad release, and to enjoy it is to draw blood from a stone.
Maybe, just maybe, Starfield will be an okay experience after its modding community has years to work on it. But the fact that we are STILL relying on such things to enjoy Bethesda games is embarrassing. We as a community should no longer tolerate such practices from AAA publishers. But I know nothing will change! Todd Howard could shit on a plate and IGN would still give it a 7/10.
If you want a decent space exploration game, try No Man's Sky, Elite Dangerous, or literally anything else. Starfield may become a decent play years from now.
Its progression is mediocre at best, the open world is fucking barren, traversal is needlessly tedious and -- on top of all of this! -- it has one of the worst stories/endings I've ever seen in a video game. There's also the poor optimisation, the plethora of bugs it launched with... the fact that some of you find something redeeming about this game astonishes me. Starfield is an objectively bad release, and to enjoy it is to draw blood from a stone.
Maybe, just maybe, Starfield will be an okay experience after its modding community has years to work on it. But the fact that we are STILL relying on such things to enjoy Bethesda games is embarrassing. We as a community should no longer tolerate such practices from AAA publishers. But I know nothing will change! Todd Howard could shit on a plate and IGN would still give it a 7/10.
If you want a decent space exploration game, try No Man's Sky, Elite Dangerous, or literally anything else. Starfield may become a decent play years from now.
I thought it was cool, but also nothing special, it's like those generic RPG games that you download for free on the internet, it's just an RPG with a lot of stuff but nothing special
70
It's not that Starfield is terrible, it's that it's a step back from every Bethesda game in almost all facets.
Where do we begin? How about base building? -- Introduced in Fallout 4, base building offered a pretty rewarding experience by allowing us to construct outposts and populate them with NPCs. Starfield's iteration feels like a significant regression. The system is not only buggier and more restrictive, but the incentives for engaging in outpost construction are minimal at best. The generic characters, like "Outpost Manager" and "Mining Captain," lack purpose, and the limited capacity for settlers further detracts from the experience. This aspect of the game feels like cut content -- unfinished and underwhelming. Additionally, the introduction of ship building, while cool on paper, fails to compensate for the base building's deficiencies; specific bays like the med bay are damn near non-functional, unable to produce medicines or offer healing services, lol.
Starfield's approach to faction quests is perhaps one of its most glaring and egregious missteps. A collection of series of faction quests that feel short and superficial, reminiscent of a "theme park haunted house" where players move through set pieces only to exit feeling underwhelmed. The ability to join conflicting factions without significant repercussions dilutes the impact of choice -- these decisions become weightless. The quests themselves feeling like mere box-ticking exercises.
Starfield's companions continue the tradition of FO4, which is to say, generic and forgettable as a whole. The game also restricts major companions to a single faction and homogenizes their moral compasses, leading to predictable interactions and a lack of genuine connection. Notable companions like Sam and Sara are burdened with unengaging personal narratives and repetitive dialogues; they just can't shut up.
Exploration -- something key of Bethesda's titles -- feels lackluster in Starfield, particularly when set against the backdrop of an expansive universe. It is completely broken up behind dozens of load screens and vast spaces of nothing, instead of one, mostly continuous, experience of previous games.
Progression systems. The skill trees have become overly simplified and laden with uninspired percentage-based upgrades, hiding some basic game features behind skill points (a terrible Ubisoft practice of game design).
Where do we begin? How about base building? -- Introduced in Fallout 4, base building offered a pretty rewarding experience by allowing us to construct outposts and populate them with NPCs. Starfield's iteration feels like a significant regression. The system is not only buggier and more restrictive, but the incentives for engaging in outpost construction are minimal at best. The generic characters, like "Outpost Manager" and "Mining Captain," lack purpose, and the limited capacity for settlers further detracts from the experience. This aspect of the game feels like cut content -- unfinished and underwhelming. Additionally, the introduction of ship building, while cool on paper, fails to compensate for the base building's deficiencies; specific bays like the med bay are damn near non-functional, unable to produce medicines or offer healing services, lol.
Starfield's approach to faction quests is perhaps one of its most glaring and egregious missteps. A collection of series of faction quests that feel short and superficial, reminiscent of a "theme park haunted house" where players move through set pieces only to exit feeling underwhelmed. The ability to join conflicting factions without significant repercussions dilutes the impact of choice -- these decisions become weightless. The quests themselves feeling like mere box-ticking exercises.
Starfield's companions continue the tradition of FO4, which is to say, generic and forgettable as a whole. The game also restricts major companions to a single faction and homogenizes their moral compasses, leading to predictable interactions and a lack of genuine connection. Notable companions like Sam and Sara are burdened with unengaging personal narratives and repetitive dialogues; they just can't shut up.
Exploration -- something key of Bethesda's titles -- feels lackluster in Starfield, particularly when set against the backdrop of an expansive universe. It is completely broken up behind dozens of load screens and vast spaces of nothing, instead of one, mostly continuous, experience of previous games.
Progression systems. The skill trees have become overly simplified and laden with uninspired percentage-based upgrades, hiding some basic game features behind skill points (a terrible Ubisoft practice of game design).
Jogo é bom, não num nível skyrim mas bom, me esforcei para continuar jogando sua história, mas por alguns fatores acabei flopando, muito dificilmente eu vá um dia pegar para jogar novamente por cansaço do jogo. fiz 7 horas de gamplay
So aggressively average and shallow it fucking hurts. Nothing exceptional to cling onto at all, Bethesda please go back to deeper rpg experiences.