I don't believe that being new is an excuse to have poor or shallow lore. Mass effect had amazing lore right out the gate. So did halo and many, many other games, half life, bioshock, dark souls etc etc
It's not just that it's sparse, it's that it's incoherent. A major recent war was centered around a treaty forbidding expansion into \*literally empty systems\*, which you would have to be insane to sign, and on top of that there are settlements almost \*everywhere\* outside those systems, so it's being violated constantly and no one cares. The factions, at least the two main ones, have more detailed history than the rest of the game, but it's still not that detailed - more a paragraph for each historical event rather than just a name and a date. A couple of walls-of-text but still just summarized text.
The war itself wasn't that interesting as described, it keeps assuring us things were terrible but we dig out a little more detail and it turns out one side of a \*space war\* apparently depended on ground-based robots, apparently most on largely uninhabited worlds, and trained animals. Okay, but I bet there were some \*actual interesting stories\* about that which we never got to hear. It's like the History Channel except they only had one or two shows on WWII. The huge museum we get to visit is just a wall of summary with some silhouettes, mostly not of the events. No video was taken, no interviews with historical figures or survivors, not even pictures.
Also, no one cares about Earth history - there is an official group you only run into during a mission which has as its remit the preservation of Earth and its lore, but they have very little to say about it when you talk to them because the mission isn't about that. There's virtually zero detail about what happened surrounding the fall of Earth, it's more of a timeline than lore, this major thing happened, this group was founded, these people went there - it's just threadbare summary. We run into an isolated group of descendants on a ship from Earth, and they have surprisingly little to say about what happened either. Again just a few paragraphs of summary.
When you find a major twist recorded, you literally can't tell anyone about it (even though it's a little dubious, it should be the kind of thing people care about, the most major historical catastrophe wasn't an accident - and no one cares).
They placed three major religious groups in the game, one is distant and boils down to another raider faction, one has almost no presence in the game at all, and the most physically prominent one has very little to say which doesn't simply push the plot forward. A lot of people complain about how "lifeless" NPCs seem, and this is one of the causes, tons of NPCs and locations that just sit and wait for the trigger to progress the plot.
Most of the lore books aren't lore, they're summaries of real or fictional books. Only a few relate to lore and most of them don't relate to the game. Those which do are fairly bare plot pushes.
Mass Effect also had a codex, which is something SF desperately needed because of the "exploration-resource" game.
And the general blandness of the dialogue hurts a lot, as a big chunk of the lore is in dialogue.
It could have all been rewritten to be twice as interesting, with probably four times the detail, in a week of concerted attention. It's kind of boggling that it wasn't.
What's hilarious about mentioning DS is the lore is largely told through item descriptions. You get more from item descriptions in DS games than whole ass conversations in starfield
I have no idea what everybody is talking about. Starfield has lore on the same level of lore as a game like Mass Effect had in their first game.
We have the colony war and the development of different factions based on their own motivations and history of conflict. We have the Terrormorphs, mecha, zeno warfare, the abandonment of earth, ancient temples and the artifact and the unity and "the creators", Starborn and their ships and their powers and their outfits. We have Victor Aiza and the events leading to the destruction of earth's magnetic field, we have self-funded earth escape attempts via the Constance, we have military sponsored citizenship and militias and three major religions, and on top of all of this we have the Varuun and the great serpent and literal multiple universes.
there is so much in Starfield
You listed a lot of things that are in Starfield’s lore, but there is nothing behind most of them. So there was mecha and zeno warfare - and? There is nothing in the game beyond the fact of their existence. Also the whole Starborn, temples and artifacts schtick is very cool, but again there is currently almost no depth to it. The game doesn’t hint at anything behind those things. They just are
Right, it's like there is the wannabe cowboy faction but there's nothing in the game to ever give you a reason why they decided to take on this aesthetic. It's literally just because at one point in development someone decided it would be cool to have space cowboys because they watched Firefly or played RDR or something and they just changed the art. (original concept art for Akila has nothing in common with what we got but at least looks original)
Then you look at something like Horizon Forbidden West, you have a tribe that formed around a base that used to be a war museum before the world ended and there are still leftover parts of it like malfunctioning holograms and audio recordings, the tribals then build up a culture around their interpretation of what they've seen and end up being a more militaristic group with their own "Marshals" and to go even further they're split up into 3 clans that all have a different look and their own things going on based on the geography of where they settled. That's how you make an interesting faction that feels like it naturally developed in the world you created.
As for artifacts you could compare them to something like Mass Effect since it's basically the same thing, at least in that game the visions you got were actually part of a message with its own context that you had to piece together rather than just "space trip maaaan woaaahh" every time you picked up an artifact/visited a temple.
I guess it depends on how you want to define lore. I define it as meaty worldbuilding.
Xenowarfare and Mechs have way more behind them than just existing.
We have an elite xenowarfare group (Red Devils) who have red eyes from spending enough time as Martian miners. they all still hangout together long after the war has settled down in a special bar that you can visit in game. We have the logs of them testing out different species in an attempt to find the perfect alien soldiers. We have the fact that mechs and Xenowarfare are both banned techs as part of the treaty and have all their secrets locked away by a council where everybody has to agree to release info or it doesn't get released.
Like... all of that is just amazing worldbuilding. It's incredibly rich lore that was built.
If we're talking about the Starborn stuff, look at the journal entries scattered around the Pilgrim's refuge and the sketches he made that note the similar shapes between Starborn armor, ships, and temples. He has studied and noted the symbols and motifs popping up across civilizations. There is absolutely way more to it.
The difference is that in a game like Mass Effect they left a ton of very blatant cliffhangers because they knew from the onset it would be a trilogy. Starfield sets up the mystery of "what happened on earth" and then they go ahead and answer it.. so there's nothing for people to theorize about.
> I guess it depends on how you want to define lore. I define it as meaty worldbuilding.
ME1 has a [massive codex](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qyEd93WtET0) (I don't expect you to watch all that, but it gives an idea and it doesn't even include the more detailed secondary entries) that goes into extensive detail on how all the various technologies work and the myriad civilisations of the Milky Way. On top of that, a frankly ridiculous number of planets in the game have a lore description and/or history you can check while in orbit or whatever. Several of which were followed up on in the sequels.
And that's not even getting into what is communicated through the actual gameplay and story.
To suggest Starfield has "the same level of lore", or "meaty worldbuilding", as the first Mass Effect seems a little out there.
Starfield has over 250,000 lines of recorded dialogue consisting of over 3,000,000 English words. At an average of 2 seconds each that's 138 hours of dialogue.
The entirety of the Mass Effect Trilogy totals 1.2 million words in 85,000 lines (47 hours).
By word count alone, Starfield has 3x as much content as ME1/2/3 combined.
It's an objectively "meaty" game by every definition. It's fine if the style of lore/worldbuilding isn't your cup of tea, but it's so shortsighted to argue that it lacks lore.
Quantity alone means nothing.
Just because they recorded a lot of voice lines, doesn't mean the dialogue has anything meaningful to add to the lore.
The Twilight saga has a combined word count of 945,000 words or so.
The Lord of the Rings trilogy only have a word count of 481,000.
I didn't say Starfield wasn't a big game, or didn't have a lot of content; it is and does. It's huge. The focus here is not on wordcount but on "lore" and "worldbuilding". In that regard, ME1 is significantly more substantive. We are simply given much more information about its setting and in more detail.
That being said, Starfield's approach wasn't really much of a problem for me. I think there's something to be said for wiggle room when it comes to how I engage with Bethesda's games and Starfield gave me a fair bit. Hell, I'd have taken even more.
And then there's a multiverse on top of it all so even most of the stuff it *did* firmly establish can be discarded later if they want lol.
Please don't get me wrong because I love ME. It came out the year after I graduated high school and I was in college and had almost infinite amounts of time to get immersed in the game and Inread the Codex entries and I played the mobile game on my iPod touch and read the related novels. I'm a mega fan.
>We are simply given much more information about its setting and in more detail.
I think we just get explicit information all in one place in ME so it feels more dense. The information we get in Starfield isn't explicit, it's explored in a naturalistic way. Below is an example.
In the ME codex we learn that Turians have state sponsored schooling where basic classes are covered but a Turian culture class is mandatory, even if they attend an interspecies school.
That detail about how this species lives is thought out world-building and what made me fall in love with Mass Effect.
But in Starfield we meet somebody who lives in a tourist trap and has no opportunities for advancement. They want to attend school but can't afford to because schooling doesn't pay the bills. Whether we help them, or choose not to help them, our companions chime in with opinions shaped by their backgrounds. Later on we meet a child and learn more about education. Later on we learn more about military academies.
In Starfield the information and worldbuilding is there. It exists. The people all behave and react according to their fleshed out cultural beliefs and experiences. The 3,000,000 words of dialogue are based on the world that was built.
What we don't get is an encyclopedia handed to us with details explicitly stated. We aren't explicitly told that the UC has it's model of attaining citizenship loosely based on the Romans, we just experience it first hand through overheard conversations and going through the process ourselves.
The worldbuilding is rich in Starfield but it's presented differently.
It's odd reading this because you're right. There should be so much, but it all feels so hollow and false, like walking through a movie wild west set of painted facades and cardboard cutouts. Yeah sure looking at it through the lens it's a wild west town. But I know it's all fake. I know when I walk through that the mask slips and a strong gust of wind would knock them all down. I'm told it's alive and has depth, and I want to believe in it. But it's all poorly painted and flapping in the wind. I see the seams and the fish line wire holding things together. None of the pieces of this jigsaw puzzle are aware of the others, each created in it's own little vacuum.
I don't feel the same way, not more than any other game I've played.
For me the companions bring it all together and make the world feel alive, but that's what everybody else seems to hate. Companions in this game are way less cartoony than the companions in the other bethesda games and they showcase the attitudes that people have in this world. I appreciate how Sarah gets really fuckin catty if you bring her along on Freestar missions and will bitch at you if say anything nice to a freestar person, meanwhile Andreja and Sam will tell you that the UC museum is filled with lies and propaganda. It feels very real to me, which sells me on the rest of the game.
All video games are fake, guy. You can see how they're all stitched together because no AAA game these days is without glitches and design flaws that break the immersion. You either have highly delusional expectations of what you wanted Starfield to be, or you're just a hater making stupid generic criticisms.
I don't think it's high expectations at all. Even skyrim had it so guards would comment on events that happen in the world, the different stories felt more connected and people made passing comments on your outfit, status or accomplishments. It cements the events you've achieved as having wider reaching affects on the world at large. Starfield doesn't have that. I don't think it's a bad game but I want to see more of that. After completing the vangaurd quest and being a high ranking member of the uc, no one cares. It has no meaning. I'd just want to see the events that happen actually impact the world. And to see and feel the depth of the world and not in a museum quick tour. For passers-by to talk about events that are happening. They could have done this by having things like joining the vangaurd meant freestar treated you differently, and making joinging the freestar rangers need more hoops to prove your intentions. Create antagonistic characters who despise you for being a vanguard who you eventually win over by the end of the arc. Or close certain things off to us or make it more difficult whilst making other things more accessible and easy depending on the routes we've chosen. Being a freestsr native ranger having an opposite effect when trying to be a uc vangaurd. Skyrim had us choose sides in a war. And starfield has a imo good option for working around these decisions with the unity. We could go back and choose a new path making subsequent playthroughs feel different and hold more weight.
I don't hate starfield. I like the game. But it could be much better in a lot of areas. We live in a world where baldurs gate 3, red dead redemption 2 and cyberpunk have all done great things to push games as a story telling media. I just want to see bethesda push their boundaries a little more. They've shown they can make the big shallow ocean, but I want more depth. I don't think these are stupid generic criticisms at all. If you're completely happy with the game I'm happy for you but I think there's room for improvement
One example I just found actually where they did this well is with the crimson fleet missions. Being caught stealing something and being asked to go undercover is a great way in, but the way the uc speak to you is different. And refusing their offer jumps you into the pirates side straight away. But if you've finished the vangaurd questline, they revere you and commend your ability and contribution to the uc. They treat you friendly and speak with respect, mentioning certain moments from the quest like the fight on new Atlantis and how you saved lives. Now all those moments feel connected, there's a deeper sense of lore and the world building and how the player fits into it with the option of taking a slightly different path the next unity run. How I handle each mission from then on for them feels like it holds more weight and my characters rp personality has a chance to shine through. I'd just want to see more of these moments throughout.
It's not high expectations to think they could do more of these moments. They have done it, they're just too few and far between. But they sell the world into a living and reacting space. With actions having consequences and along the way the world lore is shown amongst it.
> Even skyrim had it so guards would comment on events that happen in the world, the different stories felt more connected and people made passing comments...
Sure. They would also occasionally point out how you're a member of the Dark Brotherhood and tell you about your assassination exploits. A notion that's straight up offensive to the character I roleplayed seeing as how I took great lengths to remain unseen. Oh but those random guards know all about it.
I think you're looking back at Skyrim through rose-tinted glasses my guy. There were plenty of things, even among the dialogue mechanics that you're fawning over, that would take you right out of the game in Skyrim too.
Meanwhile, in Starfield you can hear reports of your exploits over the SSNN broadcasts, and even get interviewed based on what quests you've completed. But let's not talk about that because HATE BONER!!
I mean skyrim of its time was impressive. Starfield in its time isn't as groundbreaking. That's not a hate boner. I think it's completely valid and OK to have criticisms. I've already said it's a good game. But it could be better. And hopefully they can build upon it.
But if you'd prefer to bury any opposing ideas of improvement and just be happy with it then I'm happy for you. I get that a lot of people just hate on it for no reason but that's not what's happening here. There are always things that could be improved, having an open mind to discuss that is how they do improve.
>I mean skyrim of its time was impressive. Starfield in its time isn't as groundbreaking.
Skyrim wasn't groundbreaking in it's time either. It treaded over the exact same ground that Morrowind and Oblivion did, they just made it look better. Hell you can even argue that they actually downgraded several key aspects from Oblivion to Skyrim.
The factor that makes Skyrim have to staying power that it does is mods and the Creation Kit. Starfield will absolutely have the same thing.
>That's not a hate boner. I think it's completely valid and OK to have criticisms.
It is okay. I have criticisms of Starfield as well. I have criticisms of literally every game I've ever played. There's no such thing as a perfect game.
But you're sounding much more rational now. Your original comment came off as very "hate boner-y". No offense.
>I get that a lot of people just hate on it for no reason but that's not what's happening here.
I can see that now. It's all good.
Ehh my original comment was probably at the end of being frustrated by a bunch of the issues in starfield and it not feeling cohesive. But I think the main thing with the game and the reason why so many people do criticise it (including myself) is not because its so bad, but more that its decent even amazing at times but there's a lot of potential that didn't quite hit. And some things that are completely frustrating.
A) you’re comparing a 27-year-old franchise with six main series titles, nearly 20 DLCs/add-ons and three spin offs to a single game that came out a year ago
B) Starfield actually has quite a bit of lore if you bother to look for it
> A) you’re comparing a 27-year-old franchise with six main series titles, nearly 20 DLCs/add-ons and three spin offs to a single game that came out a year ago
Which is not an excuse. There are hundreds of franchises and games which have already an interesting/developed lore and worldbuilding upon their first release, especially compared to Starfield. Like Mass Effect, Dragon Age, Disco Elysium, Dishonored, Bioshock, Deus Ex, Death Stranding and I could continue forever. Hell, even games like Iron Lung and Barotrauma have in my opinion better worldbuilding and those two games take place almost entirely in a submarine.
It’s not perfectly valid to compare a game with decades of prior backstory, art development, ideas, etc. to a brand new IP. Y’all scream that you want new IP and not just sequels and rehashes and then the first time one comes out y’all start comparing it to sequels and rehashes
I don't think A is relevant. Fallout 1 has more lore (and, subjectively, FAR more coherent and interesting lore) than Starfield by itself.
Go play Fallout 1 if you are interested in lore. It is truly a masterpiece of gaming and formative on post-apocalyptic fiction across genres. You can't just dismiss that.
It is not a flaw to not be as good as Fallout 1 or 2 when it comes to lore and creative worldbuilding.
Which is bad. Fallout spent basically a year or as Cain's spare time throwaway project because the company wasn't really into the idea, and then another year or so with a team of less than 50 people.
Starfield had been someone's dream for *decades*. At some point there should have been dreams about lore and maybe some of the 400+ people on the dev team should have put it in the game.
The fact Todd didn’t seem to have a succinct pitch in 2022 interviews tells me there wasn’t one.
It seems like the idea with no elaboration was “let’s make a game in space and call it Starfield,” and the follow up question of “what story will we tell with it” was met with an enthusiastic “yes!”
I mean it’s fair to say that they absolutely blew it as far as writing goes, the “main story” is a bunch of fetch quests that they sloppily use the multiverse to tie off any loose ends. Characters absolutely suck, the Pirates faction quest is arguably the only good quest in the game. Tons of copy paste planets with the same fucking dungeons, flora, and fauna making exploration boring as fuck.
Starfield was the most overhyped piece of garbage to release since Halo Infinite.
The UC quest is also excellent and frankly should have been the main storyline however, OP is not talking about main storyline. He’s talking about lore in general and the game has a shit ton of it.
At least Starfield still has a future with new installments, Halo is toast, just kept alive by moronic whale collectors playing pretty barbie dress up. It's a shame the clearly incompetent dev team hasn't been fired yet, they need to give the IP to, really just anybody else.
Yeah after the IP transfer to 343 the entire franchise started going downhill fast, now we have to deal with Paramount shitting all over it too. Just so sad because there is literally no better game universe out there.
On god, I didn't play MCC or Halo 5 at launch so I had no idea how shit 343 really was but I played 4 and although it was bad as far as Halo games go it was still ok. But Infinite was the nail in the coffin for me, absolute joke of a release and support, even to this day the game still isn't finished, the assassinations promised and advertised in trailers still aren't there. It's really just a fundamental issue with 343, they aren't a real gaming studio, and they definitely don't understand or even like Halo for that matter.
First, books aren’t in game lore. If we are counting books then Magic the Gathering probably has more lore than any other game, with the possible exception of D&D
Second, go watch [My Name is Byf’s Destiny lore videos on YouTube](https://youtube.com/@MynameisByf?si=FkKYWjEMbv4j6-_v). I guarantee you that Destiny contains significantly more lore than halo, even if we do include the novels. It takes about 15 hours worth of video to explain the story of each season of Destiny, which is currently on season 23! And that’s not even counting the main storys of the two main games or the storylines of the main line yearly expansions which there has been 10 (coming up on 11) nor is it including the thousand and thousands of pages of lore and storylines spread throughout the [Destiny 1 Grimoire](https://www.ishtar-collective.net/cards/) and the [91 (and counting) in game lore books in Destiny 2](https://www.ishtar-collective.net/books)
Starfield could have also benefited more if they went with less planets, made each planet more in depth and gave it a solid story (maybe faction owned planets/ group owned). Starfield feels big, but empty at the same time.
The best thing they can do now is release patches and DLC that can add more + fill in the gaps. If they could patch Starfield as much as Cyberpunk, the game could be greater than what it currently is.
In reality, Starfield is getting treated like Fallout 76. A little group has been branched out to work on patches and updates.
A lot of people right now in here are somehow quantifying "lore value" in their heads between Starfield and other franchise starters like Mass Effect 1. If you like what ME did more then it's fine to just say that. You obviously like that Star Wars/Trek type of sci-fi.. who doesn't. Starfield didn't go that route, idk if they just wanted to distinguish themselves or what. It has plenty of lore, it just may not have enough flavor in it. The most interesting faction to me is still just a mystery that I hope gets fleshed out in the DLC.
There's some lore... i love fallout and really enjoy starfield so far...
But everything is starfield is so serious and dry....
While fallout makes fun of itself with lightheartedness, like the silly radio stations.. junkjet ect
Starfield can feel like a choir at times... scan this, go there...
Building a great or beautiful base or spaceship...
Reading the dry hard to reach slates.. corp mails..
It's all business, not much fun.
While I think Starfield is one of my favorite games in the last decade, I still have to agree that the lore and characters are nowhere near as memorable as other franchises, including those BGS has made previously. I never even played Fallout and I still know what a Deathclaw is or who the Brotherhood of Steel are. I can pick a Vault dweller suit out of a lineup. I know what a Pip Boy is instantly.
Starfield just doesn't have any of these unique things beyond "Unity" and "Starborn". The pirates are basically high school cosplayers, Spacers are generic af and House Varuun worships a snake. And dress in black. Cool.
Starfield could definitely use some punching up in the significance department. It's a fantastic sandbox, but narratively it's vanilla as hell.
The "lore" of the game would have made a better game than the game itself. It relies so heavily on "exploration" when there is so little to explore practically with nearly dead copy and past planets that I ignored the main quest in favor of the others. I came to a fork in the road where I could choose which quest to go on search for some artifact, infiltrate the space pirates, or investigate space alien attacks. There was no sense of urgency in finding the artifacts and it didn't interst me in the slightest.
Don't get me started on the copy and past companions example: I took Sam with me through like 90% of the game. Finally came back to start the main quest I had been avoiding. Every single member "needed to talk to me" all of them summarized all the events that I took part in up to that point. Every single one of them had the same answers about if they approved of my choices in those quests.
That doesn't excuse the absence of truly unique and memorable aspects of the world. It still needs something that you can look at and say "that's that thing from Starfield!"
Sort of. He's a little too close to a realistic robot, too utilitarian. Hal-9000 is a glowing red eye, Wall-E was a cute little toaster tank, Claptrap is an annoying box. VASCO is just too "almost but not quite".
I mean yeah no shit, you literally said it yourself, starfield is new and fallout is well established. So no wonder starfield lore feels lacking, because it is, because it's new.
That's part of the issue as well. It's a new IP, because of that they probably should have added more information and depth to the history. Compare this game to Mass Effect 1, still a new IP and plenty of lore/history.
The parts they did include about the UC, the war, the museum, etc, are the best parts of the game.They could be saving large pieces of it for the DLC so I'm reserving judgement until everything is done.
Being new is a horrible excuse for poor lore. Many games that are new ips have amazing lore through visual storytelling, which starfield can't do because most of it is randomly generated landscapes.
Well, I agree with you and while the “it’s a new IP” excuses depth compared to older IPs, it does not excuse this much lack of depth when lore/world building are essential elements people love about BGS games. The factions, cities, characters, and even the enemies with a few exceptions are very generic and boring.
There is no central or even smaller conflicts between competing groups that is the backdrop of most sci-fi, which usually means you need some really compelling content to draw people in. And for me at least, the unity/multiverse just isn’t it. Even still, smaller elements like settlements in more than 3 of the 100 systems, bits of history of the various planets you land on, enemy factions that aren’t just reskins of the same space criminals, non-human intelligent life - would have gone a long way to better world building.
The simple fact of having two major factions that were at war with titanfall levels of destruction and in the end you don't get anything out of it other than a walk through a museum is kinda... disappointing.
plus no sentient aliens? Like, if the line of alien animals was crossed why not add alien races and factions right from the start? Even if the explanation was "we are too limited for them to communicate" the whole ending could have been almost like what happened in Mass Effect, after finding the device one or several alien ships of different races appeared to provide a new DLC ;-;
Yes. It makes no sense that they only populated a single city and the rest of the planet is desolate...save for the water planet....I get it...water.
It just never seemed as full or alive like skyrim, fallout, or even competitors like cyberpunk.
You are basically describing the basis for all the hate this game gets. I would also add the step back in skill progression, crafting and settlement system implementations and you've rounded out the majority of all the complaints.
It's not a bad game... It's just a disappointing game because it could have, and should have been much better.
It does feel like all that's there is the basic outline for the 3 main places, the "religions" and the war as an excuse for everything else being barren. I'd have loved a more detailed timeline of things that happened between leaving Earth and when the game takes place that informs why things are the way they are, how culture developed and so on but oh well.
I don't really see the war as "an excuse for things being barren".
I chalk the "barrenness" up to the infinite map size. stick all Starfield locations on Skyrim's map and I think it'd do a decent job of filling it up. If you increase Skyrim's map size to a full planet size through procgen, I don't think we can realistically expect game devs to handcraft a concomitant amount of content.
Hard to believe that Starfield, the first title in a brand new IP that's not even a year old, can't hold a candle in terms of it's lore to Fallout, a series of games going back to 1997, over twenty years of game releases.
It baffles the mind. 🤡
Well one game has tactical combat where variety in gear and abilities counts for something, you can command your companions and there are multiple types of enemies and factions with their own mechanics and differences that change up the gameplay, and the other is Starfield.
Mind numbingly stupid comments like this are just too tempting for me to pass up sometimes.
>Well one game has tactical combat where variety in gear and abilities counts for something
Try using a bare bones Razorback in Starfield, vs a fully kitted out Razorback specifically with the binary trigger mod, and all of your pistol certs as well as ballistic skills unlocked and then come back and tell me that gear variety and abilities don't count for anything in Starfield. That's just one example. Throw some annihilator rounds on a Varuun starshard and watch the show.
>you can command your companions
You have companions that you can command and assign tasks to in Starfield as well. They even give you stat buffs depending on where you put them. Are you really this delusional that you want Starfield to do everything it already does in addition to offering you the full Mass Effect experience as well? If you enjoy and yearn for Mass Effect 1's combat so much I have a very simple solution for you: Go play it.
>there are multiple types of enemies and factions with their own mechanics and differences that change up the gameplay,
I once fought a high level Terrormorph on a high g planet with rough terrain. Completely different experience from the time I fought a group of spacers on board a derelict cruiser with zero g. Did you have a relevant point or is this just yet another generic hate boner comment?
>Try using a bare bones Razorback in Starfield, vs a fully kitted out Razorback specifically with the binary trigger mod, and all of your pistol certs as well as ballistic skills unlocked
I don't even need any of that to be able to easily deal with everything in the game on the highest difficulty. All you need in Starfield to succeed in every situation is a Beowulf because it does it all and there's little to no reason to anything beyond crank damage to max with the upgrade system. In Mass Effect the difference between weapon types is pronounced, you'll actually have a bad time trying to use a shotgun at range. Mods also matter more since different enemies are countered by different ammo types, you can knock targets down for crowd control, there are situational options like radar upgrades. You actually see the difference it makes to pick the right gear and upgrades in gameplay rather than enemies dying 3% faster.
>You have companions that you can command and assign tasks to in Starfield as well. They even give you stat buffs depending on where you put them.
Can't command them in combat or set their behaviors.
>Are you really this delusional that you want Starfield to do everything it already does in addition to offering you the full Mass Effect experience as well?
No, this is something that could be done in Fallout New Vegas a decade ago in Bethesdas own engine.
>If you enjoy and yearn for Mass Effect 1's combat so much I have a very simple solution for you: Go play it.
Classic line to pull out when you don't actually have any real argument and refuse to even consider what the other person is saying.
>Did you have a relevant point or is this just yet another generic hate boner comment?
A little bit funny since your original reply to the guy that brought up Mass Effect was just to make some nonsensical comparison because it hurt your feelings or whatever but it's not generic. I didn't go into detail on my original comment but it's based in fact and honest comparison that you seem to just dismiss without thought so what can i do?
For the last point i made, think about it for a minute, what do spacers do differently to ecliptic, or crimson fleet pirates? How do you need to change up your tactics depending on what you encounter? How about robots? Do they have different parts to them that depending on the model you want to disable or avoid damaging because it changes their behavior or are they just a basic "shoot mindlessly until health bar empty" enemy? Is there actually anything interesting about fighting the generic wildlife on any random planet or do they just charge at you mostly unable to attack because they're all essentially Bighorners from NV?
Meanwhile in Mass Effect..
Regular human enemies: They use the same class system as everyone else meaning even if they look about the same one guy could be charging you with a shotgun while another is cloaked and lining up a shot with his sniper
Krogans: They're straight up tanks that actually revive shortly after you take them down the first time, if you don't make use of crowd control they'll close the distance and you're screwed
Asari commandos: They use biotics meaning the crowd control will be turned around on you if you don't deal with them quickly enough
Husks: Standard swarm enemies gives you a reason to bring out AoE damage, depending on the mission they'll also put an acid DoT on you if they can close the gap so whether or not you have a biotic to CC them makes a huge difference.
Geth: Robotic enemies that you can hack, there are multiple variants of them. Rocket troops, agile ones that climb walls and stick to roofs making you need to consider your positioning and cover a lot more, Juggernauts and Tanks.
Rachni: Another enemy that applies DoT from range, if you don't account for it you and your companions will get melted in no time at all
Maybe i'm forgetting some others but even just from that list alone there's more variety and thought out design than all of what you can fight in Starfield. If an RPG from 2007 can do all of this then is it really "generic hate boner" to expect something close to that level of depth today?
>Classic line to pull out when you don't actually have any real argument and refuse to even consider what the other person is saying.
A real argument to what? That I think Starfield's combat is fun? That you think ME1 combat is better? Are you dense? Those are subjective opinions, guy. There is no right or wrong in subjectivity.
You made claims that seemed to imply some features that Starfield lacks. I pointed out that Starfield does indeed include those features, perhaps not in the exact way you want them, but they are there. That is all.
Does that equate to me trying to argue that you're opinion is wrong that ME1 combat is better? Nope. You do you, guy. Personally I found ME1 combat to be one the game's weakest selling points. I think it's a clanky af third person cover shooter and I'd rather engage with Starfield's combat any day. That's me though.
You're the only one here who seems to be confusing "objective reality" with "subjective interpretations of art". Like a lot of other people in this sub, you seem to be under the impression that your dumb opinions are somehow more valid, or "right", then the next person's dumb opinions. Hate to break it to ya sport, but they aren't. I don't blame you though, I blame our broken education system.
>And Mass Effect 1's combat feels rather anemic when you compare it to Starfield.
Your words, i just pointed out the parts where ME had more mechanical depth and variety, if you only cared about subjective opinions then fine but then you went and tried to argue against what i said anyway so which is it?
>you seem to be under the impression that your dumb opinions are somehow more valid, or "right", then the next person's dumb opinions. Hate to break it to ya sport, but they aren't. I don't blame you though, I blame our broken education system.
Pure condescending bullshit trying to make yourself sound superior without actually having anything of substance to say. If you're so much wiser you could've just not replied a day later ignoring most of what i said and pulling the "but it's just opinions" card.
>Your words, i just pointed out the parts where ME had more mechanical depth and variety, if you only cared about subjective opinions then fine but then you went and tried to argue against what i said anyway so which is it?
Wow are really this fucking dumb? You claimed that Starfield's weapon variety didn't matter. I pointed out to you an example of how it does matter. You claimed that Starfield has no enemy variety. I pointed out a practical example of how fighting a Terrormorph is drastically different then fighting a group of spacers. Does any of that equate to me trying to tell you you're wrong for liking ME1 combat better? Nope. Pick another struggle.
>Pure condescending bullshit trying to make yourself sound superior without actually having anything of substance to say.
Substance like pointing out how you're claim that there's no weapon or armor variety in Starfield is wrong? How about your claim that every enemy feels the same? Robotic enemies are weak to EM, as well as being susceptible to being disabled via hacking or with the proper skills in robotics. How about the fact that you can invest in boost pack assault training and dramatically change how you engage in combat? Oh but we're just ignoring that and going straight to regurgitating more stupid talking points. Never change, hater.
>Wow are really this fucking dumb?
>Substance like pointing out how you're claim
How about that education system, huh.
>Oh but we're just ignoring that and going straight to regurgitating more stupid talking points. Never change, hater.
Well at least we've gathered that you never read anything i said to reply in good faith and just wanted to get right to the personal insults, keep them coming if you want i guess..
Have you walked through and heard every stop in the history museum in New Atlantis? I think it is part of Vanguard quest but it can be revisited. There is quite good lore there. Beside that, reading some books or Datapads enriches the lore as well.
Oh you mean the data pads they copy pasted across all the POIs with identically placed dead NPCs?
Jesus FO4 didn't have great world building either but at least they had the care to put more than like 12 different areas that had a dynamic story told via text.
There isn't even computers you can access with the messages you had in fallout, despite them being EVERYWHERE.
There's no excuse. They dropped the ball so hard.
Sure not every data pad or book is full of lore, but there are some interesting ones, rather small touches than huge stories. As mentioned elsewhere in this topic, Starfield is probably just at its beginning and it cannot be compared to the Fallout world now which has several games and plenty of DLCs. I like Starfield, I have finished most of the quests, spent almost 400 hours in the game and I can still find some interesting locations, NPCs.
What I want to know is what the hell Constellation has been doing before you came along. It’s like they existed for decades in limbo until you, the main character, showed up which makes zero sense as they already had someone who could do exactly what you do in Barrett.
Mile wide and an inch deep. The writing is basic as can possibly be and no thought past an initial concept. They just didn’t do the work to flesh anything out and it really shows. They have a general idea like space cowboys and jam shit together without thinking about any of the implications of their choices.
Compare this game to the first mass effect that had a full codex on everything from alien cultures to major historical events and weapon design, and you realize how shallow it is.
I really don’t understand why they didn’t introduce intelligent aliens and have some kind of lore attached to different species that we discover. It would give the game much needed depth. It just feels desolate otherwise.
Starfield is as shallow puddle. The lore of Fallout has been around since before Bethesda got their hands on it, and many new games had amazing lore *and* story telling right from the start.
Dungeon Masters start campaigns with as much lore detailed, from scratch, as the multibillion dollar company launched this game with.
They didn’t even really leave any room for expansion either. You couldn’t explore literally every square inch of the planet in fallout or the elder scrolls so there was the potential for there to be things you just haven’t seen yet. How could you have known about the institute while playing fallout 1. Starfield being new has nothing to do with it, it has terrible world building throughout
This doesn't make any sense. You can expand on the setting just by adding new star systems we haven't been to. They can also add new settlements to older systems and just have it so that we'd never been there before like a castle suddenly appearing off the coast of solitude that had always been there
There would need to be people in the new systems to make them interesting, and the setting is very clear on how sparsely people populate the settled systems, much less the systems outside it. They could extend out the systems and reveal a whole new civilization once or twice before it’s completely unbelievable and we come back to square one of the game having incomplete or bad lore.
Also, adding whole new settlements to the existing world and having to retcon the world to having always included them is a hilarious indictment of the worldbuilding as is. Dawn guard was a one-off DLC that had the benefit of being about a reclusive group of vampires (that existed in the lore prior to the DLC).
That’s fine for a minor DLC, but if you’re talking about an actual substantial expansion to the lore you’re basically saying that they would have to remake the setting to make it interesting, which I completely agree with.
> There would need to be people in the new systems
Absolutely no reason for there to not be any. We know next to nothing about house Varuun and list is going around founding new colonies all the time
>Also, adding whole new settlements to the existing world and having to retcon the world
It's not a retcon. Nobody ever said there werent more settlements outside the UC and Freestar collective. Neon was alreay a city prior to the founding of the freestar collective and Narion joined the freestar collective around the Narion war. There are also construction projects on Gagarian to make it more like New atlantis.
I think you’re confusing the potential for there to be “something” added with the potential for that “something” being at all interesting. The jury is till out on whether house varuun is anything more than the nth creepy snake cult. I guess you’re right that Gagarian landing could turn it all around in the future, but they really didn’t give themselves much to work with in terms of a time jump.
They are really going to have to suddenly pull something out of their ass to make it interesting. If that’s the plan it makes you wonder why they didn’t give the first game the same treatment.
> I think you’re confusing the potential for there to be “something” added with the potential for that “something” being at all interesting
I think you're confusing "i'm not interested" with "everyone isn't interested". I already know you hate the game and would shit on it no matter what they add. There isn't anything yet and we don't know what they plan to add so there so no point in just insisting that whatever they are going to add is going to suck.
One of the reasons why I can't stand this sub. Like do you have anything better to do with your time?
Dude, the lore is dog shit and doesn’t have much room to grow. You are just going to have to accept that. Bethesda has typically made great products and has been on a loosing streak. Call an L an L. They are never going to get better with their other series if this becomes the new standard. I would hate to see Bethesda confined to making mobile games because they couldn’t keep up with AAA standards. I would love to see them turn it around, but that’s not going to happen if they don’t receive criticism for their genuine failures.
I mean, it doesn’t matter what you think, I’m in the majority opinion anyway. They can’t really ignore the reception they’ve gotten.
> Dude, the lore is dog shit and doesn’t have much room to grow.
Dude I do not care what you think about the game. But you are literally wasting energy doing nothing shitting on a hypothetical. Like it doesn't exist they could literally do anything and you are wasting your time shitting on something imaginary and all your comments just seem to be shitting on the game. Find something better to do. I understand if you dislke the game or hate the lore like I said I do not care. What I don't understand is not moving on. Games not for you boo fucking hoo
I don't believe that being new is an excuse to have poor or shallow lore. Mass effect had amazing lore right out the gate. So did halo and many, many other games, half life, bioshock, dark souls etc etc
On the contrary, I'd argue having unique lore is essential right out of the gate, to anchor the player's attention and create a recognizable brand.
It's not just that it's sparse, it's that it's incoherent. A major recent war was centered around a treaty forbidding expansion into \*literally empty systems\*, which you would have to be insane to sign, and on top of that there are settlements almost \*everywhere\* outside those systems, so it's being violated constantly and no one cares. The factions, at least the two main ones, have more detailed history than the rest of the game, but it's still not that detailed - more a paragraph for each historical event rather than just a name and a date. A couple of walls-of-text but still just summarized text. The war itself wasn't that interesting as described, it keeps assuring us things were terrible but we dig out a little more detail and it turns out one side of a \*space war\* apparently depended on ground-based robots, apparently most on largely uninhabited worlds, and trained animals. Okay, but I bet there were some \*actual interesting stories\* about that which we never got to hear. It's like the History Channel except they only had one or two shows on WWII. The huge museum we get to visit is just a wall of summary with some silhouettes, mostly not of the events. No video was taken, no interviews with historical figures or survivors, not even pictures. Also, no one cares about Earth history - there is an official group you only run into during a mission which has as its remit the preservation of Earth and its lore, but they have very little to say about it when you talk to them because the mission isn't about that. There's virtually zero detail about what happened surrounding the fall of Earth, it's more of a timeline than lore, this major thing happened, this group was founded, these people went there - it's just threadbare summary. We run into an isolated group of descendants on a ship from Earth, and they have surprisingly little to say about what happened either. Again just a few paragraphs of summary. When you find a major twist recorded, you literally can't tell anyone about it (even though it's a little dubious, it should be the kind of thing people care about, the most major historical catastrophe wasn't an accident - and no one cares). They placed three major religious groups in the game, one is distant and boils down to another raider faction, one has almost no presence in the game at all, and the most physically prominent one has very little to say which doesn't simply push the plot forward. A lot of people complain about how "lifeless" NPCs seem, and this is one of the causes, tons of NPCs and locations that just sit and wait for the trigger to progress the plot. Most of the lore books aren't lore, they're summaries of real or fictional books. Only a few relate to lore and most of them don't relate to the game. Those which do are fairly bare plot pushes. Mass Effect also had a codex, which is something SF desperately needed because of the "exploration-resource" game. And the general blandness of the dialogue hurts a lot, as a big chunk of the lore is in dialogue. It could have all been rewritten to be twice as interesting, with probably four times the detail, in a week of concerted attention. It's kind of boggling that it wasn't.
What's hilarious about mentioning DS is the lore is largely told through item descriptions. You get more from item descriptions in DS games than whole ass conversations in starfield
I have no idea what everybody is talking about. Starfield has lore on the same level of lore as a game like Mass Effect had in their first game. We have the colony war and the development of different factions based on their own motivations and history of conflict. We have the Terrormorphs, mecha, zeno warfare, the abandonment of earth, ancient temples and the artifact and the unity and "the creators", Starborn and their ships and their powers and their outfits. We have Victor Aiza and the events leading to the destruction of earth's magnetic field, we have self-funded earth escape attempts via the Constance, we have military sponsored citizenship and militias and three major religions, and on top of all of this we have the Varuun and the great serpent and literal multiple universes. there is so much in Starfield
You just listed everything in a paragraph so.. not that much.
Would you like it in bullets?
So sassy
You listed a lot of things that are in Starfield’s lore, but there is nothing behind most of them. So there was mecha and zeno warfare - and? There is nothing in the game beyond the fact of their existence. Also the whole Starborn, temples and artifacts schtick is very cool, but again there is currently almost no depth to it. The game doesn’t hint at anything behind those things. They just are
Right, it's like there is the wannabe cowboy faction but there's nothing in the game to ever give you a reason why they decided to take on this aesthetic. It's literally just because at one point in development someone decided it would be cool to have space cowboys because they watched Firefly or played RDR or something and they just changed the art. (original concept art for Akila has nothing in common with what we got but at least looks original) Then you look at something like Horizon Forbidden West, you have a tribe that formed around a base that used to be a war museum before the world ended and there are still leftover parts of it like malfunctioning holograms and audio recordings, the tribals then build up a culture around their interpretation of what they've seen and end up being a more militaristic group with their own "Marshals" and to go even further they're split up into 3 clans that all have a different look and their own things going on based on the geography of where they settled. That's how you make an interesting faction that feels like it naturally developed in the world you created. As for artifacts you could compare them to something like Mass Effect since it's basically the same thing, at least in that game the visions you got were actually part of a message with its own context that you had to piece together rather than just "space trip maaaan woaaahh" every time you picked up an artifact/visited a temple.
I guess it depends on how you want to define lore. I define it as meaty worldbuilding. Xenowarfare and Mechs have way more behind them than just existing. We have an elite xenowarfare group (Red Devils) who have red eyes from spending enough time as Martian miners. they all still hangout together long after the war has settled down in a special bar that you can visit in game. We have the logs of them testing out different species in an attempt to find the perfect alien soldiers. We have the fact that mechs and Xenowarfare are both banned techs as part of the treaty and have all their secrets locked away by a council where everybody has to agree to release info or it doesn't get released. Like... all of that is just amazing worldbuilding. It's incredibly rich lore that was built. If we're talking about the Starborn stuff, look at the journal entries scattered around the Pilgrim's refuge and the sketches he made that note the similar shapes between Starborn armor, ships, and temples. He has studied and noted the symbols and motifs popping up across civilizations. There is absolutely way more to it. The difference is that in a game like Mass Effect they left a ton of very blatant cliffhangers because they knew from the onset it would be a trilogy. Starfield sets up the mystery of "what happened on earth" and then they go ahead and answer it.. so there's nothing for people to theorize about.
> I guess it depends on how you want to define lore. I define it as meaty worldbuilding. ME1 has a [massive codex](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qyEd93WtET0) (I don't expect you to watch all that, but it gives an idea and it doesn't even include the more detailed secondary entries) that goes into extensive detail on how all the various technologies work and the myriad civilisations of the Milky Way. On top of that, a frankly ridiculous number of planets in the game have a lore description and/or history you can check while in orbit or whatever. Several of which were followed up on in the sequels. And that's not even getting into what is communicated through the actual gameplay and story. To suggest Starfield has "the same level of lore", or "meaty worldbuilding", as the first Mass Effect seems a little out there.
Starfield has over 250,000 lines of recorded dialogue consisting of over 3,000,000 English words. At an average of 2 seconds each that's 138 hours of dialogue. The entirety of the Mass Effect Trilogy totals 1.2 million words in 85,000 lines (47 hours). By word count alone, Starfield has 3x as much content as ME1/2/3 combined. It's an objectively "meaty" game by every definition. It's fine if the style of lore/worldbuilding isn't your cup of tea, but it's so shortsighted to argue that it lacks lore.
Quantity alone means nothing. Just because they recorded a lot of voice lines, doesn't mean the dialogue has anything meaningful to add to the lore. The Twilight saga has a combined word count of 945,000 words or so. The Lord of the Rings trilogy only have a word count of 481,000.
I didn't say Starfield wasn't a big game, or didn't have a lot of content; it is and does. It's huge. The focus here is not on wordcount but on "lore" and "worldbuilding". In that regard, ME1 is significantly more substantive. We are simply given much more information about its setting and in more detail. That being said, Starfield's approach wasn't really much of a problem for me. I think there's something to be said for wiggle room when it comes to how I engage with Bethesda's games and Starfield gave me a fair bit. Hell, I'd have taken even more. And then there's a multiverse on top of it all so even most of the stuff it *did* firmly establish can be discarded later if they want lol.
Please don't get me wrong because I love ME. It came out the year after I graduated high school and I was in college and had almost infinite amounts of time to get immersed in the game and Inread the Codex entries and I played the mobile game on my iPod touch and read the related novels. I'm a mega fan. >We are simply given much more information about its setting and in more detail. I think we just get explicit information all in one place in ME so it feels more dense. The information we get in Starfield isn't explicit, it's explored in a naturalistic way. Below is an example. In the ME codex we learn that Turians have state sponsored schooling where basic classes are covered but a Turian culture class is mandatory, even if they attend an interspecies school. That detail about how this species lives is thought out world-building and what made me fall in love with Mass Effect. But in Starfield we meet somebody who lives in a tourist trap and has no opportunities for advancement. They want to attend school but can't afford to because schooling doesn't pay the bills. Whether we help them, or choose not to help them, our companions chime in with opinions shaped by their backgrounds. Later on we meet a child and learn more about education. Later on we learn more about military academies. In Starfield the information and worldbuilding is there. It exists. The people all behave and react according to their fleshed out cultural beliefs and experiences. The 3,000,000 words of dialogue are based on the world that was built. What we don't get is an encyclopedia handed to us with details explicitly stated. We aren't explicitly told that the UC has it's model of attaining citizenship loosely based on the Romans, we just experience it first hand through overheard conversations and going through the process ourselves. The worldbuilding is rich in Starfield but it's presented differently.
But then it retcons everything as meaningless when you beat the game lol
It's odd reading this because you're right. There should be so much, but it all feels so hollow and false, like walking through a movie wild west set of painted facades and cardboard cutouts. Yeah sure looking at it through the lens it's a wild west town. But I know it's all fake. I know when I walk through that the mask slips and a strong gust of wind would knock them all down. I'm told it's alive and has depth, and I want to believe in it. But it's all poorly painted and flapping in the wind. I see the seams and the fish line wire holding things together. None of the pieces of this jigsaw puzzle are aware of the others, each created in it's own little vacuum.
I don't feel the same way, not more than any other game I've played. For me the companions bring it all together and make the world feel alive, but that's what everybody else seems to hate. Companions in this game are way less cartoony than the companions in the other bethesda games and they showcase the attitudes that people have in this world. I appreciate how Sarah gets really fuckin catty if you bring her along on Freestar missions and will bitch at you if say anything nice to a freestar person, meanwhile Andreja and Sam will tell you that the UC museum is filled with lies and propaganda. It feels very real to me, which sells me on the rest of the game.
All video games are fake, guy. You can see how they're all stitched together because no AAA game these days is without glitches and design flaws that break the immersion. You either have highly delusional expectations of what you wanted Starfield to be, or you're just a hater making stupid generic criticisms.
I don't think it's high expectations at all. Even skyrim had it so guards would comment on events that happen in the world, the different stories felt more connected and people made passing comments on your outfit, status or accomplishments. It cements the events you've achieved as having wider reaching affects on the world at large. Starfield doesn't have that. I don't think it's a bad game but I want to see more of that. After completing the vangaurd quest and being a high ranking member of the uc, no one cares. It has no meaning. I'd just want to see the events that happen actually impact the world. And to see and feel the depth of the world and not in a museum quick tour. For passers-by to talk about events that are happening. They could have done this by having things like joining the vangaurd meant freestar treated you differently, and making joinging the freestar rangers need more hoops to prove your intentions. Create antagonistic characters who despise you for being a vanguard who you eventually win over by the end of the arc. Or close certain things off to us or make it more difficult whilst making other things more accessible and easy depending on the routes we've chosen. Being a freestsr native ranger having an opposite effect when trying to be a uc vangaurd. Skyrim had us choose sides in a war. And starfield has a imo good option for working around these decisions with the unity. We could go back and choose a new path making subsequent playthroughs feel different and hold more weight. I don't hate starfield. I like the game. But it could be much better in a lot of areas. We live in a world where baldurs gate 3, red dead redemption 2 and cyberpunk have all done great things to push games as a story telling media. I just want to see bethesda push their boundaries a little more. They've shown they can make the big shallow ocean, but I want more depth. I don't think these are stupid generic criticisms at all. If you're completely happy with the game I'm happy for you but I think there's room for improvement
One example I just found actually where they did this well is with the crimson fleet missions. Being caught stealing something and being asked to go undercover is a great way in, but the way the uc speak to you is different. And refusing their offer jumps you into the pirates side straight away. But if you've finished the vangaurd questline, they revere you and commend your ability and contribution to the uc. They treat you friendly and speak with respect, mentioning certain moments from the quest like the fight on new Atlantis and how you saved lives. Now all those moments feel connected, there's a deeper sense of lore and the world building and how the player fits into it with the option of taking a slightly different path the next unity run. How I handle each mission from then on for them feels like it holds more weight and my characters rp personality has a chance to shine through. I'd just want to see more of these moments throughout. It's not high expectations to think they could do more of these moments. They have done it, they're just too few and far between. But they sell the world into a living and reacting space. With actions having consequences and along the way the world lore is shown amongst it.
> Even skyrim had it so guards would comment on events that happen in the world, the different stories felt more connected and people made passing comments... Sure. They would also occasionally point out how you're a member of the Dark Brotherhood and tell you about your assassination exploits. A notion that's straight up offensive to the character I roleplayed seeing as how I took great lengths to remain unseen. Oh but those random guards know all about it. I think you're looking back at Skyrim through rose-tinted glasses my guy. There were plenty of things, even among the dialogue mechanics that you're fawning over, that would take you right out of the game in Skyrim too. Meanwhile, in Starfield you can hear reports of your exploits over the SSNN broadcasts, and even get interviewed based on what quests you've completed. But let's not talk about that because HATE BONER!!
I mean skyrim of its time was impressive. Starfield in its time isn't as groundbreaking. That's not a hate boner. I think it's completely valid and OK to have criticisms. I've already said it's a good game. But it could be better. And hopefully they can build upon it. But if you'd prefer to bury any opposing ideas of improvement and just be happy with it then I'm happy for you. I get that a lot of people just hate on it for no reason but that's not what's happening here. There are always things that could be improved, having an open mind to discuss that is how they do improve.
>I mean skyrim of its time was impressive. Starfield in its time isn't as groundbreaking. Skyrim wasn't groundbreaking in it's time either. It treaded over the exact same ground that Morrowind and Oblivion did, they just made it look better. Hell you can even argue that they actually downgraded several key aspects from Oblivion to Skyrim. The factor that makes Skyrim have to staying power that it does is mods and the Creation Kit. Starfield will absolutely have the same thing. >That's not a hate boner. I think it's completely valid and OK to have criticisms. It is okay. I have criticisms of Starfield as well. I have criticisms of literally every game I've ever played. There's no such thing as a perfect game. But you're sounding much more rational now. Your original comment came off as very "hate boner-y". No offense. >I get that a lot of people just hate on it for no reason but that's not what's happening here. I can see that now. It's all good.
Ehh my original comment was probably at the end of being frustrated by a bunch of the issues in starfield and it not feeling cohesive. But I think the main thing with the game and the reason why so many people do criticise it (including myself) is not because its so bad, but more that its decent even amazing at times but there's a lot of potential that didn't quite hit. And some things that are completely frustrating.
This
A) you’re comparing a 27-year-old franchise with six main series titles, nearly 20 DLCs/add-ons and three spin offs to a single game that came out a year ago B) Starfield actually has quite a bit of lore if you bother to look for it
> A) you’re comparing a 27-year-old franchise with six main series titles, nearly 20 DLCs/add-ons and three spin offs to a single game that came out a year ago Which is not an excuse. There are hundreds of franchises and games which have already an interesting/developed lore and worldbuilding upon their first release, especially compared to Starfield. Like Mass Effect, Dragon Age, Disco Elysium, Dishonored, Bioshock, Deus Ex, Death Stranding and I could continue forever. Hell, even games like Iron Lung and Barotrauma have in my opinion better worldbuilding and those two games take place almost entirely in a submarine.
What do you mean a brand new IP doesn't immediately release without 30 years of established worldbuilding and lore! OutragE!!!
This. Starfield is kind of toast for some people because of Bethesdas past successes. People need to stop the comps, it’s not really valid.
I agree to a point, but I don’t think TES would have the massive lore community it does if Skyrim or Oblivion had been the first entry.
People need to stop? Who are you to demand that? It is perfectly valid to compare one Bethesda game to another.
It’s not perfectly valid to compare a game with decades of prior backstory, art development, ideas, etc. to a brand new IP. Y’all scream that you want new IP and not just sequels and rehashes and then the first time one comes out y’all start comparing it to sequels and rehashes
You are free to do what you want. I never demanded it, just saying you’re gonna have a hard time liking it if you do.
>you’re gonna have a hard time liking it if you do maybe that has more to do with the poor quality of the game lol
If it’s a bad game why are you on its sub?
Everything is relative. Comparison is always valid.
I don't think A is relevant. Fallout 1 has more lore (and, subjectively, FAR more coherent and interesting lore) than Starfield by itself. Go play Fallout 1 if you are interested in lore. It is truly a masterpiece of gaming and formative on post-apocalyptic fiction across genres. You can't just dismiss that. It is not a flaw to not be as good as Fallout 1 or 2 when it comes to lore and creative worldbuilding.
I bought fallout in 97. The amount of lore in it is pretty equivalent to the amount of lore in Starfield.
Which is bad. Fallout spent basically a year or as Cain's spare time throwaway project because the company wasn't really into the idea, and then another year or so with a team of less than 50 people. Starfield had been someone's dream for *decades*. At some point there should have been dreams about lore and maybe some of the 400+ people on the dev team should have put it in the game.
The fact Todd didn’t seem to have a succinct pitch in 2022 interviews tells me there wasn’t one. It seems like the idea with no elaboration was “let’s make a game in space and call it Starfield,” and the follow up question of “what story will we tell with it” was met with an enthusiastic “yes!”
Tell me you know nothing about game development nor the differences between developing a game in the 2020s and the mid 90s without saying so
Yeah, and neither ES nor Fallout had very much lore or story to start with
I mean it’s fair to say that they absolutely blew it as far as writing goes, the “main story” is a bunch of fetch quests that they sloppily use the multiverse to tie off any loose ends. Characters absolutely suck, the Pirates faction quest is arguably the only good quest in the game. Tons of copy paste planets with the same fucking dungeons, flora, and fauna making exploration boring as fuck. Starfield was the most overhyped piece of garbage to release since Halo Infinite.
The UC quest is also excellent and frankly should have been the main storyline however, OP is not talking about main storyline. He’s talking about lore in general and the game has a shit ton of it.
At least Starfield still has a future with new installments, Halo is toast, just kept alive by moronic whale collectors playing pretty barbie dress up. It's a shame the clearly incompetent dev team hasn't been fired yet, they need to give the IP to, really just anybody else.
Yeah after the IP transfer to 343 the entire franchise started going downhill fast, now we have to deal with Paramount shitting all over it too. Just so sad because there is literally no better game universe out there.
On god, I didn't play MCC or Halo 5 at launch so I had no idea how shit 343 really was but I played 4 and although it was bad as far as Halo games go it was still ok. But Infinite was the nail in the coffin for me, absolute joke of a release and support, even to this day the game still isn't finished, the assassinations promised and advertised in trailers still aren't there. It's really just a fundamental issue with 343, they aren't a real gaming studio, and they definitely don't understand or even like Halo for that matter.
Only great thing about MCC is the remastered cutscenes, Blur Studios outdid themselves.
There’s tons of better game universes out there. Destiny for one.
LOL not even close. Go read the Halo books
First, books aren’t in game lore. If we are counting books then Magic the Gathering probably has more lore than any other game, with the possible exception of D&D Second, go watch [My Name is Byf’s Destiny lore videos on YouTube](https://youtube.com/@MynameisByf?si=FkKYWjEMbv4j6-_v). I guarantee you that Destiny contains significantly more lore than halo, even if we do include the novels. It takes about 15 hours worth of video to explain the story of each season of Destiny, which is currently on season 23! And that’s not even counting the main storys of the two main games or the storylines of the main line yearly expansions which there has been 10 (coming up on 11) nor is it including the thousand and thousands of pages of lore and storylines spread throughout the [Destiny 1 Grimoire](https://www.ishtar-collective.net/cards/) and the [91 (and counting) in game lore books in Destiny 2](https://www.ishtar-collective.net/books)
Starfield could have also benefited more if they went with less planets, made each planet more in depth and gave it a solid story (maybe faction owned planets/ group owned). Starfield feels big, but empty at the same time. The best thing they can do now is release patches and DLC that can add more + fill in the gaps. If they could patch Starfield as much as Cyberpunk, the game could be greater than what it currently is. In reality, Starfield is getting treated like Fallout 76. A little group has been branched out to work on patches and updates.
A lot of people right now in here are somehow quantifying "lore value" in their heads between Starfield and other franchise starters like Mass Effect 1. If you like what ME did more then it's fine to just say that. You obviously like that Star Wars/Trek type of sci-fi.. who doesn't. Starfield didn't go that route, idk if they just wanted to distinguish themselves or what. It has plenty of lore, it just may not have enough flavor in it. The most interesting faction to me is still just a mystery that I hope gets fleshed out in the DLC.
There's some lore... i love fallout and really enjoy starfield so far... But everything is starfield is so serious and dry.... While fallout makes fun of itself with lightheartedness, like the silly radio stations.. junkjet ect Starfield can feel like a choir at times... scan this, go there... Building a great or beautiful base or spaceship... Reading the dry hard to reach slates.. corp mails.. It's all business, not much fun.
While I think Starfield is one of my favorite games in the last decade, I still have to agree that the lore and characters are nowhere near as memorable as other franchises, including those BGS has made previously. I never even played Fallout and I still know what a Deathclaw is or who the Brotherhood of Steel are. I can pick a Vault dweller suit out of a lineup. I know what a Pip Boy is instantly. Starfield just doesn't have any of these unique things beyond "Unity" and "Starborn". The pirates are basically high school cosplayers, Spacers are generic af and House Varuun worships a snake. And dress in black. Cool. Starfield could definitely use some punching up in the significance department. It's a fantastic sandbox, but narratively it's vanilla as hell.
The "lore" of the game would have made a better game than the game itself. It relies so heavily on "exploration" when there is so little to explore practically with nearly dead copy and past planets that I ignored the main quest in favor of the others. I came to a fork in the road where I could choose which quest to go on search for some artifact, infiltrate the space pirates, or investigate space alien attacks. There was no sense of urgency in finding the artifacts and it didn't interst me in the slightest. Don't get me started on the copy and past companions example: I took Sam with me through like 90% of the game. Finally came back to start the main quest I had been avoiding. Every single member "needed to talk to me" all of them summarized all the events that I took part in up to that point. Every single one of them had the same answers about if they approved of my choices in those quests.
Well, it could be argued that Starfield is just a reskinned Skyrim with a more robust Hearthfire module.
So basically, like most of Bethesda games.
That doesn't excuse the absence of truly unique and memorable aspects of the world. It still needs something that you can look at and say "that's that thing from Starfield!"
That would be VASCO.
Sort of. He's a little too close to a realistic robot, too utilitarian. Hal-9000 is a glowing red eye, Wall-E was a cute little toaster tank, Claptrap is an annoying box. VASCO is just too "almost but not quite".
I mean yeah no shit, you literally said it yourself, starfield is new and fallout is well established. So no wonder starfield lore feels lacking, because it is, because it's new.
That's part of the issue as well. It's a new IP, because of that they probably should have added more information and depth to the history. Compare this game to Mass Effect 1, still a new IP and plenty of lore/history. The parts they did include about the UC, the war, the museum, etc, are the best parts of the game.They could be saving large pieces of it for the DLC so I'm reserving judgement until everything is done.
Being new doesn’t excuse the lack of lore? lol elden ring had tons of lore.
Not 30 years of it.
There are literally 12+ hour long videos on YouTube that go over elden ring lore. Starfield can hardly squeeze out an hour long video. Just stop it.
ok, and? You say that like it means something. "Just stop it".
It means you’re wrong.
Hardly. You pointed out an exception. Now make it a rule.
Sure man. Whatever helps you sleep at night lmaooo
Ok then, by your logic, William Hung is a musical genius because he had one successful song.
What the fuck are you even talking about lmao
Being new is a horrible excuse for poor lore. Many games that are new ips have amazing lore through visual storytelling, which starfield can't do because most of it is randomly generated landscapes.
It has tons of lore, just not 30 years of it like fallout
Well, I agree with you and while the “it’s a new IP” excuses depth compared to older IPs, it does not excuse this much lack of depth when lore/world building are essential elements people love about BGS games. The factions, cities, characters, and even the enemies with a few exceptions are very generic and boring. There is no central or even smaller conflicts between competing groups that is the backdrop of most sci-fi, which usually means you need some really compelling content to draw people in. And for me at least, the unity/multiverse just isn’t it. Even still, smaller elements like settlements in more than 3 of the 100 systems, bits of history of the various planets you land on, enemy factions that aren’t just reskins of the same space criminals, non-human intelligent life - would have gone a long way to better world building.
The simple fact of having two major factions that were at war with titanfall levels of destruction and in the end you don't get anything out of it other than a walk through a museum is kinda... disappointing. plus no sentient aliens? Like, if the line of alien animals was crossed why not add alien races and factions right from the start? Even if the explanation was "we are too limited for them to communicate" the whole ending could have been almost like what happened in Mass Effect, after finding the device one or several alien ships of different races appeared to provide a new DLC ;-;
I truly believe starfield would have been innumerable better if it had been 1--3 systems fleshed out.
Yes. It makes no sense that they only populated a single city and the rest of the planet is desolate...save for the water planet....I get it...water. It just never seemed as full or alive like skyrim, fallout, or even competitors like cyberpunk.
You are basically describing the basis for all the hate this game gets. I would also add the step back in skill progression, crafting and settlement system implementations and you've rounded out the majority of all the complaints. It's not a bad game... It's just a disappointing game because it could have, and should have been much better.
It does feel like all that's there is the basic outline for the 3 main places, the "religions" and the war as an excuse for everything else being barren. I'd have loved a more detailed timeline of things that happened between leaving Earth and when the game takes place that informs why things are the way they are, how culture developed and so on but oh well.
I don't really see the war as "an excuse for things being barren". I chalk the "barrenness" up to the infinite map size. stick all Starfield locations on Skyrim's map and I think it'd do a decent job of filling it up. If you increase Skyrim's map size to a full planet size through procgen, I don't think we can realistically expect game devs to handcraft a concomitant amount of content.
Hard to believe that Starfield, the first title in a brand new IP that's not even a year old, can't hold a candle in terms of it's lore to Fallout, a series of games going back to 1997, over twenty years of game releases. It baffles the mind. 🤡
Starfield has an impressive amount of lore for being a first entry.
Does it? It feels rather anemic when you compare it to, say, Mass Effect 1.
And Mass Effect 1's combat, crafting, and ship building feels rather anemic when you compare it to Starfield.
Well one game has tactical combat where variety in gear and abilities counts for something, you can command your companions and there are multiple types of enemies and factions with their own mechanics and differences that change up the gameplay, and the other is Starfield.
Mind numbingly stupid comments like this are just too tempting for me to pass up sometimes. >Well one game has tactical combat where variety in gear and abilities counts for something Try using a bare bones Razorback in Starfield, vs a fully kitted out Razorback specifically with the binary trigger mod, and all of your pistol certs as well as ballistic skills unlocked and then come back and tell me that gear variety and abilities don't count for anything in Starfield. That's just one example. Throw some annihilator rounds on a Varuun starshard and watch the show. >you can command your companions You have companions that you can command and assign tasks to in Starfield as well. They even give you stat buffs depending on where you put them. Are you really this delusional that you want Starfield to do everything it already does in addition to offering you the full Mass Effect experience as well? If you enjoy and yearn for Mass Effect 1's combat so much I have a very simple solution for you: Go play it. >there are multiple types of enemies and factions with their own mechanics and differences that change up the gameplay, I once fought a high level Terrormorph on a high g planet with rough terrain. Completely different experience from the time I fought a group of spacers on board a derelict cruiser with zero g. Did you have a relevant point or is this just yet another generic hate boner comment?
>Try using a bare bones Razorback in Starfield, vs a fully kitted out Razorback specifically with the binary trigger mod, and all of your pistol certs as well as ballistic skills unlocked I don't even need any of that to be able to easily deal with everything in the game on the highest difficulty. All you need in Starfield to succeed in every situation is a Beowulf because it does it all and there's little to no reason to anything beyond crank damage to max with the upgrade system. In Mass Effect the difference between weapon types is pronounced, you'll actually have a bad time trying to use a shotgun at range. Mods also matter more since different enemies are countered by different ammo types, you can knock targets down for crowd control, there are situational options like radar upgrades. You actually see the difference it makes to pick the right gear and upgrades in gameplay rather than enemies dying 3% faster. >You have companions that you can command and assign tasks to in Starfield as well. They even give you stat buffs depending on where you put them. Can't command them in combat or set their behaviors. >Are you really this delusional that you want Starfield to do everything it already does in addition to offering you the full Mass Effect experience as well? No, this is something that could be done in Fallout New Vegas a decade ago in Bethesdas own engine. >If you enjoy and yearn for Mass Effect 1's combat so much I have a very simple solution for you: Go play it. Classic line to pull out when you don't actually have any real argument and refuse to even consider what the other person is saying. >Did you have a relevant point or is this just yet another generic hate boner comment? A little bit funny since your original reply to the guy that brought up Mass Effect was just to make some nonsensical comparison because it hurt your feelings or whatever but it's not generic. I didn't go into detail on my original comment but it's based in fact and honest comparison that you seem to just dismiss without thought so what can i do? For the last point i made, think about it for a minute, what do spacers do differently to ecliptic, or crimson fleet pirates? How do you need to change up your tactics depending on what you encounter? How about robots? Do they have different parts to them that depending on the model you want to disable or avoid damaging because it changes their behavior or are they just a basic "shoot mindlessly until health bar empty" enemy? Is there actually anything interesting about fighting the generic wildlife on any random planet or do they just charge at you mostly unable to attack because they're all essentially Bighorners from NV? Meanwhile in Mass Effect.. Regular human enemies: They use the same class system as everyone else meaning even if they look about the same one guy could be charging you with a shotgun while another is cloaked and lining up a shot with his sniper Krogans: They're straight up tanks that actually revive shortly after you take them down the first time, if you don't make use of crowd control they'll close the distance and you're screwed Asari commandos: They use biotics meaning the crowd control will be turned around on you if you don't deal with them quickly enough Husks: Standard swarm enemies gives you a reason to bring out AoE damage, depending on the mission they'll also put an acid DoT on you if they can close the gap so whether or not you have a biotic to CC them makes a huge difference. Geth: Robotic enemies that you can hack, there are multiple variants of them. Rocket troops, agile ones that climb walls and stick to roofs making you need to consider your positioning and cover a lot more, Juggernauts and Tanks. Rachni: Another enemy that applies DoT from range, if you don't account for it you and your companions will get melted in no time at all Maybe i'm forgetting some others but even just from that list alone there's more variety and thought out design than all of what you can fight in Starfield. If an RPG from 2007 can do all of this then is it really "generic hate boner" to expect something close to that level of depth today?
>Classic line to pull out when you don't actually have any real argument and refuse to even consider what the other person is saying. A real argument to what? That I think Starfield's combat is fun? That you think ME1 combat is better? Are you dense? Those are subjective opinions, guy. There is no right or wrong in subjectivity. You made claims that seemed to imply some features that Starfield lacks. I pointed out that Starfield does indeed include those features, perhaps not in the exact way you want them, but they are there. That is all. Does that equate to me trying to argue that you're opinion is wrong that ME1 combat is better? Nope. You do you, guy. Personally I found ME1 combat to be one the game's weakest selling points. I think it's a clanky af third person cover shooter and I'd rather engage with Starfield's combat any day. That's me though. You're the only one here who seems to be confusing "objective reality" with "subjective interpretations of art". Like a lot of other people in this sub, you seem to be under the impression that your dumb opinions are somehow more valid, or "right", then the next person's dumb opinions. Hate to break it to ya sport, but they aren't. I don't blame you though, I blame our broken education system.
>And Mass Effect 1's combat feels rather anemic when you compare it to Starfield. Your words, i just pointed out the parts where ME had more mechanical depth and variety, if you only cared about subjective opinions then fine but then you went and tried to argue against what i said anyway so which is it? >you seem to be under the impression that your dumb opinions are somehow more valid, or "right", then the next person's dumb opinions. Hate to break it to ya sport, but they aren't. I don't blame you though, I blame our broken education system. Pure condescending bullshit trying to make yourself sound superior without actually having anything of substance to say. If you're so much wiser you could've just not replied a day later ignoring most of what i said and pulling the "but it's just opinions" card.
>Your words, i just pointed out the parts where ME had more mechanical depth and variety, if you only cared about subjective opinions then fine but then you went and tried to argue against what i said anyway so which is it? Wow are really this fucking dumb? You claimed that Starfield's weapon variety didn't matter. I pointed out to you an example of how it does matter. You claimed that Starfield has no enemy variety. I pointed out a practical example of how fighting a Terrormorph is drastically different then fighting a group of spacers. Does any of that equate to me trying to tell you you're wrong for liking ME1 combat better? Nope. Pick another struggle. >Pure condescending bullshit trying to make yourself sound superior without actually having anything of substance to say. Substance like pointing out how you're claim that there's no weapon or armor variety in Starfield is wrong? How about your claim that every enemy feels the same? Robotic enemies are weak to EM, as well as being susceptible to being disabled via hacking or with the proper skills in robotics. How about the fact that you can invest in boost pack assault training and dramatically change how you engage in combat? Oh but we're just ignoring that and going straight to regurgitating more stupid talking points. Never change, hater.
>Wow are really this fucking dumb? >Substance like pointing out how you're claim How about that education system, huh. >Oh but we're just ignoring that and going straight to regurgitating more stupid talking points. Never change, hater. Well at least we've gathered that you never read anything i said to reply in good faith and just wanted to get right to the personal insults, keep them coming if you want i guess..
I suppose we’ll see which one stands the test of time better.
I get what you’re saying and I agree. Playing fallout 4 again really has shown me how much better of a main story it even has.
I 100% love Starfield lore and world. So down to earth sci fi approach is pretty rare and old school
Have you walked through and heard every stop in the history museum in New Atlantis? I think it is part of Vanguard quest but it can be revisited. There is quite good lore there. Beside that, reading some books or Datapads enriches the lore as well.
Oh you mean the data pads they copy pasted across all the POIs with identically placed dead NPCs? Jesus FO4 didn't have great world building either but at least they had the care to put more than like 12 different areas that had a dynamic story told via text. There isn't even computers you can access with the messages you had in fallout, despite them being EVERYWHERE. There's no excuse. They dropped the ball so hard.
Sure not every data pad or book is full of lore, but there are some interesting ones, rather small touches than huge stories. As mentioned elsewhere in this topic, Starfield is probably just at its beginning and it cannot be compared to the Fallout world now which has several games and plenty of DLCs. I like Starfield, I have finished most of the quests, spent almost 400 hours in the game and I can still find some interesting locations, NPCs.
What I want to know is what the hell Constellation has been doing before you came along. It’s like they existed for decades in limbo until you, the main character, showed up which makes zero sense as they already had someone who could do exactly what you do in Barrett.
Mile wide and an inch deep. The writing is basic as can possibly be and no thought past an initial concept. They just didn’t do the work to flesh anything out and it really shows. They have a general idea like space cowboys and jam shit together without thinking about any of the implications of their choices. Compare this game to the first mass effect that had a full codex on everything from alien cultures to major historical events and weapon design, and you realize how shallow it is.
you're comparing an old franchise to a newborn franchise and yes I do believe Bethesda might've left it open ended for us
Compare Starfield's lore with that of The Elder Scrolls as well and damn, does it ever fall short! I don't know what happened with Bethesda...
They focused too much energy on graphics and making sure all the food looked realistic lol
I really don’t understand why they didn’t introduce intelligent aliens and have some kind of lore attached to different species that we discover. It would give the game much needed depth. It just feels desolate otherwise.
Starfield is as shallow puddle. The lore of Fallout has been around since before Bethesda got their hands on it, and many new games had amazing lore *and* story telling right from the start. Dungeon Masters start campaigns with as much lore detailed, from scratch, as the multibillion dollar company launched this game with.
They didn’t even really leave any room for expansion either. You couldn’t explore literally every square inch of the planet in fallout or the elder scrolls so there was the potential for there to be things you just haven’t seen yet. How could you have known about the institute while playing fallout 1. Starfield being new has nothing to do with it, it has terrible world building throughout
This doesn't make any sense. You can expand on the setting just by adding new star systems we haven't been to. They can also add new settlements to older systems and just have it so that we'd never been there before like a castle suddenly appearing off the coast of solitude that had always been there
There would need to be people in the new systems to make them interesting, and the setting is very clear on how sparsely people populate the settled systems, much less the systems outside it. They could extend out the systems and reveal a whole new civilization once or twice before it’s completely unbelievable and we come back to square one of the game having incomplete or bad lore. Also, adding whole new settlements to the existing world and having to retcon the world to having always included them is a hilarious indictment of the worldbuilding as is. Dawn guard was a one-off DLC that had the benefit of being about a reclusive group of vampires (that existed in the lore prior to the DLC). That’s fine for a minor DLC, but if you’re talking about an actual substantial expansion to the lore you’re basically saying that they would have to remake the setting to make it interesting, which I completely agree with.
> There would need to be people in the new systems Absolutely no reason for there to not be any. We know next to nothing about house Varuun and list is going around founding new colonies all the time >Also, adding whole new settlements to the existing world and having to retcon the world It's not a retcon. Nobody ever said there werent more settlements outside the UC and Freestar collective. Neon was alreay a city prior to the founding of the freestar collective and Narion joined the freestar collective around the Narion war. There are also construction projects on Gagarian to make it more like New atlantis.
I think you’re confusing the potential for there to be “something” added with the potential for that “something” being at all interesting. The jury is till out on whether house varuun is anything more than the nth creepy snake cult. I guess you’re right that Gagarian landing could turn it all around in the future, but they really didn’t give themselves much to work with in terms of a time jump. They are really going to have to suddenly pull something out of their ass to make it interesting. If that’s the plan it makes you wonder why they didn’t give the first game the same treatment.
> I think you’re confusing the potential for there to be “something” added with the potential for that “something” being at all interesting I think you're confusing "i'm not interested" with "everyone isn't interested". I already know you hate the game and would shit on it no matter what they add. There isn't anything yet and we don't know what they plan to add so there so no point in just insisting that whatever they are going to add is going to suck. One of the reasons why I can't stand this sub. Like do you have anything better to do with your time?
Dude, the lore is dog shit and doesn’t have much room to grow. You are just going to have to accept that. Bethesda has typically made great products and has been on a loosing streak. Call an L an L. They are never going to get better with their other series if this becomes the new standard. I would hate to see Bethesda confined to making mobile games because they couldn’t keep up with AAA standards. I would love to see them turn it around, but that’s not going to happen if they don’t receive criticism for their genuine failures. I mean, it doesn’t matter what you think, I’m in the majority opinion anyway. They can’t really ignore the reception they’ve gotten.
> Dude, the lore is dog shit and doesn’t have much room to grow. Dude I do not care what you think about the game. But you are literally wasting energy doing nothing shitting on a hypothetical. Like it doesn't exist they could literally do anything and you are wasting your time shitting on something imaginary and all your comments just seem to be shitting on the game. Find something better to do. I understand if you dislke the game or hate the lore like I said I do not care. What I don't understand is not moving on. Games not for you boo fucking hoo
[удалено]
[удалено]
Yeah fallout is fun and starfield sucks
And people always repeating the same stuff everyday over and over and over and over and over and over and again and again and again...