The real issue is that it’s not Skyrim in space. Skyrim in space would’ve been better. What we got was a hollow husk of a game. There’s no substance or charm, because it’s all procedurally generated hills and cliffs.
procedurally generated ain’t all bad, but for this game it was not the move. As soon as I heard about “100+ planets” i kinda lost hope in the game. What they should’ve done instead was make A Solar System. 8 or so planets to land in, explore, and do quests in, and go absolutely ham on those 8 planets to make them as intesting and diverse from each other as possible. The rest would be moons or space stations you’d find exploring space. IDK, this could just be me, but i feel doing this alone would have improved the game significantly
Yeah that sounds fun af. Procedural generation has a place, but devs need to stop assuming every game should have it. Quality over quantity.
Or to steal an argument about AI writing “if you couldn’t be bothered to make the levels, why do you think it can hold my attention in an exploration game”
On one hand, I kinda understand why people in general, not just game devs, try and implement the “bigger is better” idea. It’s easy, and all you really need to do is, theoretically, be “bigger” than the competition.
Problem here is that the closest competition to Starfeild is No Man’s Sky, despite not being in the same genre (I’ve seen the same thing being asked in so many reviews: “What does Starfield do that NMS doesn’t?” Like, even plotwise. I didn’t even know NMS had a plot TBH). And Bethesda decided to (intentionally or otherwise) ape NMS, not realizing that procedural generation worked in NMS because for one, it’s a survivalcraft at heart while Starfeild isn’t, and because the five main compents of that game are…well, solidly made, and tie INTO the galaxy being procedurally generated (especially the survival and building aspect) instead of it being tacked on for the “wow factor”. Nowadays, i mean. On release tho…gonna assume you could have easily made that argument.
Meanwhile, Starfield’s galaxy is procedurally generated because…the player apparently needs a buffet of locations to explore to kill/rack up time rather than a handful of them with actually handcrafted touches and purpose divided into star systems (so they can get the space Odyssey vibe the game is trying to go with) or something, kinda like the way Mass Effect 2’s map was.
It’s a completely different game and genre, but that’s exactly what made the space exploration Outer Wilds so great: One seamless solar system, fully handcrafted with literally zero filler content. Not even a single location. No matter what you find, it’s always meaningful and connected to other things in the game.
Of course, that doesn’t mean it’s the only way, but it really highlights the limits of procedural generation.
It’s not the procedural generation that’s the problem.
It’s that they are building on top of a shit engine and so they only procedurally generated the landscapes and don’t procedurally generate the actual content.
So you will go to 25 different generated planets and then do the exact same output 25 different times. The exact same outpost. With the same crap in each room. The same exact layout.
The most extreme example of this ridiculousness is the temples with the exact same minigame hundreds of times on hundreds of plants in different playthroughs.
It’s not that it has procedural generation.
It’s that it doesn’t have enough of it to execute on the concept of a full and varied universe.
They need to pick a direction, and they didn’t. Either commit to procedural generation and make it good, or don’t bother and make a really good Skyrim-type experience.
I don’t think Starfield devs knew which they wanted so they kinda did both… poorly.
I was punished for exploring. I ended up finding something that is not useful until the scripted event allows you to make it relevant. It’s the opposite of Skyrim where you can explore so much you can end up in Blackreach.
With Starfield you should stick to the script and never explore on your own. Only explore planets the main storylines have asked you to visit and never before.
Huh, so this is what happens when you passive-aggressively diss your customers’ reviews and tell them “no, it isn’t our fault our game feels dated and like a step down from what we had before, you guys are just playing the game wrong”…
It isn’t an ad. I just linked to the store page itself and I don’t post affiliate ads and those aren’t possible on steam anyway. It’s just resolving the link and there just happens to be a sale for that garbage shaped game.
You should have seen the fucking starfield subreddit before release lmao. One guy on there was genuinely convinced this was “something special” and would revolutionize the gaming industry.
The basis for that claim? The way Todd fucking Howard was acting, and the marketing material for the game.
The game is a solid 7 and still holds immense potential. The lack of updates combined with a lot of quest & progression breaking bugs and dismissal of such criticism is a 0 and why I wrote a negative review.
Solid 7 out of what? If you say out of 100, then yes I agree drinking diarrhea water out of a toilet bowl is more fun to do than playing that shit. If you say out of 10 then you are claiming it's well above average (5) which means you have been drinking diarrhea water.
I was simply joking, but it seems I don't need to since you seem to be the life of the party. And no, I'll stay here and continue writing with vulgarity instead of going to Reddit, go fuck yourself.
Ok, but by your own measure, youre the thin skinned cock. See? You said a big boy word when I told you that you were an idiot, so now that magically makes you thin skinned by childrens playground rules.
When I rate a movie 7/10, I’m saying it’s a great movie that’s DEFINITELY worth a watch. Some of my favorite movies are 6/10.
When these people rate a shit game 7/10, they mean “it needs improvement.”
If Starfield was a movie, it’d be rated as a 4-5/10. It’s okay. It’s fine, but it’s not revolutionary. It’s mediocre at best. That’s a five. It’s worse than The Outer Worlds, which is maybe a six.
Please stay here with your vulgarity, you’re the reasonable one here.
My 7 isn't loving the game. It's an above average "good" rating. I don't think I've even played a game that I would rate 7 out of 100 because they'd be so obviously bad that I wouldn't even buy them in the first place. For me, 5 out of 10 is already "bad" and everything below that is just varying degrees of trash.
I think Fallout 4 was a solid 7. Starfield seems to have been aiming for F4 in space but it falls short in just about every arena. I remember the settlement feature being really cool but unfortunately not very well integrated into the game, and a little half baked. I was so hype to see Starfield would be bringing it back, but instead it was entirely pointless and a total waste of time, as well as being far more restrictive.
The main quest in F4 was at least relatable and interesting enough with some very nice side quests. Starfield has the most boring narrative of every game I’ve ever played, the mind brainless go-hum fetch quest side quests, and no interesting characters in sight. It was literally the 7/10 Fallout 4 but somehow worse.
A solid 7? I’d give it a 4-5. I very stupidly preordered and I very much regret it. The one and only time I ever did so as well. The game shows a shocking lack of care. It definitely has some systems which ought to be interesting but they’re rendered pointless by the game and the main plot is utterly appalling.
I still think the game is fine. I still think it did some very interesting things. I got over 100 hours of playtime from it. I played on gamepass too. So I definitely got my monies worth.
Does it have problems? Sure. Quite a few, but it’s still enjoyable enough of you don’t expect the too much. It also had tons of potential of they actually release the creation kit.
I don’t think it’s the worst game ever. It’s not even their worst game.
At this point it’s morbid curiosity. Same reason I have Duke Nukem 3D Forever. If The Day Before was an offline game, I check it out too just for laughs. I still have GOG offline installers for Cyberpunk v1.0, because that is some funny shit when you didn’t preorder it.
Too late! Already downloaded what’s available, just busy with other games. And waiting for other patches, hopefully for nvidia performance improvements, before I bother installing.
Thank you for mentioning it. I did see that was finally added, just figured it probably needs some more ironing out, and may get it before I eventually get around to it. I’m in no hurry.
Dude, ok. The responses you received imo are somewhat disingenuous, and bandwagonish.
Is it the answer to Skyrim or Fallout? God no.
It is fun? Yes. It’s Skyrim/Fallout in space. Don’t expect much more than that.
You want an ultra realistic space fairing game? Play Elite Dangerous.
You’ll have have at least 40-60 hours of fun. I’m not trying to be a shill here. There are a decent amount of things you can extract from Starfield for why you won’t like it. However, it’s still something worthy of experiencing.
Thank you for the more reasonable feedback. I’ve gleaned from a few youtube channels that it’s worth checking out for at least a little while if you don’t bring certain expectations to it. Outside Xtra/Xbox in particular had one discussion that made it still sound interesting enough to give it a shot.
And if nothing else, I could consider it “Train Wreck Simulator” and enjoy it for a while from that angle.
I have major regret for buying this game. Games like this should have a 20 hour refund window instead of 2. It took me 2 hours to realize it wasn’t possible to get the game to not run like garbage.
I’ve heard that, but once I tried to refund a game at 3 hours and got nothing but an automated response (denial) everytime I requested a refund.
In this specific case it was actually a game I played 2 hours of during a free weekend approximately 4 years before buying it, played one hour after buying it to see if it had gotten better, decided it hadn’t and refunded it. But Steam counts free weekend playtime towards the refund window…
If there’s any actual way to ensure a human reviews it, that’d be neat. 100% it was automatically denied by some code just checking my playtime and seeing it was past two hours.
I know when you’re fighting with Google support as an app store developer, including images in correspondence can get a human to look at it as they can’t properly scan that for automation purposes.
Maybe a url in a claim would be the same for steam? Not sure if you can include images.
7 hours of cities skylines before I have up on trying to get a subway to align in what’s supposed to be a relaxing game. My fault that most of that time was afk, I suppose. Steam refused to refund.
I once got a refund after 5 hours. I opened the game, left it running at the main menu, then went to make lunch and completely forgot about it. Wasted probably about 3.5 hours in the menu. When I asked for a refund, I didn’t even explain that I’d left it open in the main menu; I just pointed out why I didn’t like it and why I wanted a refund. The game in question was Mount and Blade, store country was Germany, and I submitted the refund request on the same day I bought it.
The more recent installment, Bannerlord, had caught my attention, but a lot of people were saying it was unfinished and that devs weren’t updating the game to deliver things that were promised and instead were making minor hotfixes that even broke the mods attempting to address the game’s inadequacies. A lot of the complaints compared it to the first installment in the series and were recommending trying it out, especially since it had had a thriving mod scene and was more fleshed-out over all. I tried it out, but it just felt too dated for my taste; couldn’t get into it.
Maybe I would’ve gotten into it had I given it more time. I just felt pressured to quickly make a decision on whether to refund it after I had wasted more than 3 hours of my “trial” sitting in the main menu.
Well if the companies refuse to give you a demo to try, maybe you should pirate it to try and then purchase it.
Another option is becoming a patient gamer and just waiting for the game to get better (if it does) a year or two down the line and then buy it at a discount.
In the last few years there aren’t many games I didnt regret buying early.
I’d rather buy it than spend hours and hours downloading and failing to unpack it for unknown reasons.
But I’m not going to spend more than like 10 minutes trying to make it work. If it takes longer than that, it’s just a shit game that doesn’t deserve my money. Too many other perfectly good games to spend my time playing to fuck around with all of that.
Perhaps Steam’s policy should be 2 hours or 10% of expected playtime as set by the devs, whichever is greater, perhaps with a max of 10 hours. That seems pretty reasonable to me.
It couldn't possibly be the fact that the game is just mid as all fuck, and people are far enough past the honeymoon phase that they're finally having to accept it.
I think it’s more like “why are they bothering?” Like, usually for these kinds of single-player games, the reviews improve over time because once the nature of the game is well known, new prospective buyers are more likely to be correct about whether they’ll like it or not, so new reviews are mostly from people who self-selected for being likely to enjoy the game.
So either people are getting worse at knowing if they’ll like Starfield before they buy it, or they’re buying it despite knowing they probably won’t like it so they can leave a negative review, or people who bought it at release are going back and reviewing it months later.
There was a narrative it got review bombed I think. So people can get into it thinking it’s not that but it ends up being exactly what they feared.
If there is a game that has mixed reviews, I sometimes still go for it if I feel really interesred. It could just be “hit or miss” thing and I could still love it while some hate it.
This can be people doing the same thing and majority finding out it’s not working for them. Also, there is a sale on Steam, so likely many people got it for themselves, or for Christmas
No. It’s got nothing to do with “Haters being Haters”. The camel’s back just finally broke.
Frankly, it’s something that I’m surprised didn’t happen sooner. People got tired of excusing Bethesda’s many blunders since they joined Microsoft (because after that, they should have no excuse for mediocre…anything, especially on the technical side) Bethesda also got too used to people giving them a pass and going “oh, silly Bethesda!” when they saw a severe bug or just bad/mediocre mechanics, where if it was anyone else, they’d be rightfully upset that they paid fully AAA price and the game was a broken, bug filled mess (sometimes with bugs that date back to Morrowind, at that), and is finally feeling that burn others normally get. It was cute (apparently) in 2006 with Oblivion, it’s no longer cute in 2023.
It’s also likely to do with Bethesda’s attitude. Them responding to criticism about some planets being empty and boring to explore with things like “it’s not boring. When Armstrong and the gang landed on the moon IRL, they weren’t bored” or just passive aggresively in general to negative reviews with actual critisms of the game instead of taking the critisim to heart and striving to maybe add some content to them as an update (or DLC, but them charging $70, then asking for more money to fix a problem in the base game would bring em more heat than anything) being some examples.
Or the fact that, instead of fixing severe bugs or optimizing their game, they’re introducing this Creations thing and basically doing what i said in parenthesis above.
I love when people actually critique games, that's how you get better games. Just refund and leave a non-aggressive negative review, let them know the concerns, blind fans are still going to call 'hate', but their claim has no foundation if you are just genuinely being a critic. People really settle for average and 'rinse and repeat' games, you can demand more, don't bend over to these AAA companies.
Seriously though, stop buying games in the first week or two of them releasing, let the dust settle first, they aren't going anywhere.
Yup. That second bit should be a golden standard, but…honestly? Knowing companies hire psychiatrists and all that jazz that tell them exactly what they need to put out there to get people to buy, install FOMO, hit addicts where it hurts, or just wear them down till they eventually say “yes”, and that its not just for games, it becomes kinda murky for me to just throw all the blame at the people buying. Not saying that people shouldn’t do their do dilagence (and after a while, to learn to ignore said marketing tricks. Fool me once and all that), they absolutely should, just that the other side are also hitting bellow the belt every chance they can in order to make a sale.
Yeah, it's hard to throw all the blame on people when there's so many engineered tactics to tempt people to buy stuff, but there's got to be a point where you realise you don't really need that special skin for pre-ordering, you won't even use it and you won't even be playing the game in a year. I'd like to see more regulations on it all, just to protect the people who struggle to protect themselves from predatory business tactics.
Its getting regular updates. I think every 6 weeks. Each new update will disturb the water, when it either breaks what few mods are out already and someone quits fixing it, or when the update fails to fix/creates a new bug and someone finds that to be too much.
Then a new wave of annoyed people will reignite the conversation.
Youre also going to see each time that more and more people start talking praise on the game. As some people do just like it as is, and as updates repair or add enough things that some people are willing to consider “enough” to undo the previous flaws.
How much of each depends on if those updates are actually ever good, or if theyre lackluster or fail to stick to the called shot schedule.
It’s a big release with a life cycle. Big release by the guys who made Skyrim? it’s going to continue to get new people even after it’s life cycle officially ends. So as long as Bethesda keeps digging themselves deeper instead of out the hole they made, the negative reviews and press will keep coming; by these new folks and the current players who see Bethesda basically making the situation worse in order to give any curious buyers a warning to be mindful at what they’re going to throw money at. Do some people sometimes go a bit too scathing in their takes? Sure. But honestly? I’m not gonna blame em. I know a disillusioned person when i see one, and disillusioned or otherwise, they’re still not at all wrong with most of their complaints.
the “hater” thing…yeah, most of these aren’t haters. If they were bringing up BS claims, sure (See: The Pronouns thing). But the majority of “hate” this game is getting is…actual shortcomings the game has, or for the pretty crappy responses the devs put out in response. Dare I say it, most of the “hate” is by actual fans of Bethesda. Again, very disillusioned likely now former fans, but yeah. Haters don’t spend the energy to go this indepth about something, fans passionate about the thing typically do tho.
Like i said in my other comment, the camel’s back broke for a lot of people after 13 long years. Not 5 or 3 years, 13. Even more if you were a Bethesda fan before Skyrim.
I cannot agree with a lot of this, that it’s a justified never ending series of hate waves. I especially cannot agree these are Bethesda fans. Every comment thread typically contains a shitload of vitriol toward them specifically, calling it out by name.
I was a huge fan of Skyrim and fallout 3/4. I bought Starfield, hated the map, found the game kind of interesting but not obsession level compelling, and just haven’t played it much. It couldn’t be less interesting to me to obsessively hate it. There isn’t a way it could be bad enough to talk about over and over. It’s old news. I may pick it up later when I’m bored and get into it, or I may not. Life moves on. I think people need to see it as what it is, a video game, and as such there are much more important things in life. Play the ones you like and be done with it.
Having said all this the hate waves don’t seem to be stopping so I’m simply going to add Starfield to my content filter. Just simply don’t give a shit.
People leave steam reviews when they’ve played a game. There’s no deadline. So why wouldn’t new reviews be coming in? It happens to all games. Why should Starfield be different?
It’s because the people leaving negative reviews now are the opposite of haters.
We’re the people who still gave a damn, who were willing to put the effort to play the game, who found at least part of it entertaining enough to keep playing despite all the frustrations, who dared hope that the next quest or world or NPC would bring back the feeling of playing the old Bethesda games.
We’re the people who the game finally managed to break despite how much we tried to enjoy it. Who gave up in frustration after the last crash made us lose all the time we’d spent customizing our ship (my case), who lost the will to play after realising we knew what we’d find behind that corner or locked door because we’d already encountered them half a dozen times in exact copies of the same building in half as many planets, who after weeks of trying to find the same sense of wonder we’d found in previous Bethesda games finally gave up after the umpteenth unfulfilling quest bland generic NPC, or cookie cutter location.
And we’re the people who, even after all that, still had enough respect for a company that had once made games we’d loved not to post a negative review… until, instead of acknowledging the game’s faults and trying to fix them, Bethesda started attacking reviewers for their opinions and defending their poor design choices.
People are being entitled taint-lickers. It does suck that its optimization is poor, but I’m on a 4 year-old PC build and my CPU was not top-end even then, with a 3070 and I have had zero issues running it. The space travel should be more interesting, they really fucked up by making space piracy basically impossible, so you can’t ever profit by taking the ships of people who actively try to murder you. There’s a lot that could be more engaging, but also the reviews of Elex are mostly positive and it’s one of the worst, most quest-bugged half finished pieces of shit I’ve ever played, with basically nothing going for it beside decent art and a unique story. The game is trash and I wasted way too much time on it. Starfield is vastly better. Not amazing, but solidly OK. Without the social-media circle-jerk, there is no way the reviews would continue to get worse as they continue to address performance issues and fix bugs.
Yes, and Piranha Bytes is small AA German game studio with a staggering 33 people as of 2021 (according to wikipedia) that have always stuck to their lane and made very niche games in the background that are basically only appealling to their audience. They know damn well who they’re aiming at with their stuff too, because they’re not trying to change the formula much as of Elex 2 or grab as much people as possible.
You can compare that to Bethesda (that according to inside sources, wants to act like a AA when they’re acctually AAA in manpower, budget, and project scope), with it’s 450 people on staff and different subsidaries that work together with them as needed, to Piranha Bytes, but that’d be disingenuous as all hell.
Its insane to me that you just compared those two games
If only because a lot of the positive reviews for elex are extremely vocal about the way the game falls flat and fails to give a good experience, and that the thumbs up is because of the knowledge of the devs small size.
There is something to be said for the game to be hyped for YEARS and to come out being much less than what the hype seemed to imply. Running on the old and tired poorly-optimized “not Gamebryo” engine, a bunch of fetch quests punctuated by fast travel “exploration”, and mostly empty procedurally-generated planets bolted in to make Todd Howard’s vision of 1000 planets a hollow reality… all of that can get people feeling pretty underwhelmed with the game.
It isn’t necessarily that Starfield is bad, but that it is not great, and that it continues to be pushed as some amazing experience it isn’t. Sorry Todd, but I’ve been to some of the Wonders of the World before. I’m not going to be in awe of your virtual empty planet and the vastness of space and how beautiful it is through a computer screen. It just doesn’t hit the same way that you want it to, especially in the way most gamers will experience it.
Here’s the kicker, though… some parts of Starfield can become great. Fallout 76 was bad and got better when Wastelanders added NPCs, so it stands to reason they could make some sizable shifts that make the game more enjoyable.
That’s exactly what I’m saying. I’m not even saying it sucks really, to me it’s just not super compelling so far. End of story. Not gonna talk about it anymore. And I’ve decided after this thread that Starfield is going in my Lemmy content filter. I don’t care in the least how much people hate it so I don’t need to read about it every 4 days.
It keeps getting mentioned because it’s the new Bethesda game (also its kind of a big deal being their first new IP in, what, 20 years?), it hasn’t been even a year since it dropped (so it’s still fresh to people), and it has more content coming. And because every new update will stir the old users again and bring a new wave of users that will also keep mentioning its improvements and its flaws.
And i mean, even aside from that, Oblivion and Morrowind still get mentioned to this day (in both good ways and bad), and they’re much older. Same’s going to happen to Starfield. It’s just the way it is.
Your game might have been a 6/10 ten or fifteen years ago, but today it’s just outdated in every single aspect.
Not only that, but its characters and quests feel generic and uninspired even when compared to older Bethesda games, and the little background stories that made them great (I still remember that guy falling from the sky just out of Seyda Neen all these years later) are not only entirely absent, but their absence is highlighted by the sheer generic blandness and emptiness of the planets and the cookie cutter repetition of the locations you find randomly scattered on them (often without any consideration for the planet’s nature or environment; I’ve lost count of the amount of times I’ve facepalmed after finding an outdoors lounging area with sandwiches and whatnot in planets with no breathable atmosphere; and the time Gopher found life in a cookie cutter cave in Earth’s moon without the game acknowledging anything about it just made me feel all kinds of vicarious embarrassment for your game).
And to top that off there’s the bugs (I posted my negative review out of frustration after the last time the game crashed before I could save after spending way too long modifying my ship with that extremely poorly designed ship editor interface — though even that isn’t as bad as outposts; I entirely gave up on those after the first attempt), and Bethesda’s apparent absolute lack of interest in fixing them…
Which gets me to the main reason people are shitting on your game, your company, and you personally now, Todd: the sheer Elon Musk levels of lunacy you and your company have displayed in response to the first wave of negative reviews by telling the reviewers their opinions were wrong, and the fact that said lunacy apparently takes precedence over fixing the damn bugs.
This is no longer about a mediocre poorly written and lazily designed game running like shit on a decades old engine that should’ve been ditched after Morrowind, this is about Bethesda jumping the shark and losing any respect its customers might have once had for a company that used to produce great games. We gave you another chance after the horse armour debacle. We stood by you when your games became formulaic generic fantasy with Oblivion and Skyrim, because the stories were still good. We gave you many chances, because we remembered the good old times and we naively hoped they could come back. And then you showed your true colours (admittedly for the nth time, but hope is hard to break) and outright told us our genuine concerns were, against all evidence (in the year of games like Baldur’s Gate 3!) wrong.
Fuck you, Todd. You ruined it. And it’s quite possible Bethesda will never recover.
Good. As if the game wasn't already 100% "mostly negative" (Bethesda game but somehow even lazier), they have breached technological frontiers in being petulant little shits about the obvious feedback that that practice spawns.
I got so damn bored. After 40 hours I put the game down and said to myself “I don’t think I’ll be playing this again.” It just all seemed so pointless.
Pointless is definitely the word. Some of he coolest systems in the game are ship building and base building, but the half baked new game plus bullshit gameplay loop fucking deletes all that
Couple of hours in (on console) and it just feels a bit fiddly, and… not sure why I need to be doing what I am. There’s some attempt at providing intrigue, but none of it makes me want to come back. I got an Xbox and Game Pass for it, yet I’ve been playing Slay the Spire (which I’ve already played hundreds of hours on Deck/PC) a lot instead.
True, but games are different and an open-world game should be fun for far longer than for example a linear shooter, due to density and freedom with sandbox elements.
I was incredibly tempted to pre-order Starfield. Everything about it should be right up my alley. I love Sci-fi, space and all things related. But I learned my lesson after pre-ordering Diablo 4. I decided to try out the pirated version shortly after release and was so disappointed and glad I didn’t buy it. I dropped it after a few hours and had no desire to play it after that.
Also coming into it straight after playing Baldur’s Gate 3 made it look so dated. The plastic doll looking NPC’s and animations, boring dialogue and writing. I’m not even that into fantasy/D&D type settings and BG3 drew me in for many hours.
I really hope someone makes a game as good as BG3 but set in space, similar to Mass Effect etc.
I just started BG3, it feels like a modern Dragon Age, Mass Effect with serious focus on the RPG elements. The posing and character models aren’t a leap like the Witcher 3, but the voice acting is top notch
Yeah, similar for me. On one had, the idea of a space based “Skyrim” type game sounded pretty cool.
On the other hand, yet another Bethesda “skyrim/fallout” type of game has been overdone without much innovation by Bethesda. So my hopes were quite tempered.
I feel exactly the same. DND and fantasy settings aren’t my thing, but I still enjoyed the heck out of BG3 for the story and characters. If Larian made a sci fi game that would be amazing.
I think BG3 is making a lot of normal quality games look really bad this year. Like putting a super model in a picture of normally okay people.
That said BG3’s true innovation was literally just putting the work in. They didn’t make anything truly new, they just did everything game developers have learned in the last 40 years to a very high standard.
The one thing I would argue that is a bit “new” is that they had a design paradigm similar to immersive sims on their systems, and that is not so common on these kind of top down rpg.
But yeah, the real “innovation” was just making an actually polished game.
I thought that was a good idea, and I’m a huge fan of timeloops… But so much of the rest was poorly done that after a couple loops, you stop wanting to loop.
Add comment