Oddbean

I decided to play Starfield even though it looked like Fallout 4 in space (not a good thing, I didn’t enjoy Fallout 4). And while it isn’t bad, I find myself wishing for the quests and universe of Starfield, with No Man’s Sky engine and freedom of movement. Seriously Bethesda, change your engine. It’s bad. Really bad.

@39c11d1e yeah... Eurogamer hit the nail on the head with their review. "Bethesda's games are typically named after their settings, over their people. Starfield's problem is its lack of one. It's a non-place, formless, joined entirely by menu screens and hyperlinks replacing the almost divine sensation of direct experience. Rather than being built in service of presentness and a sense of place, Starfield is set entirely in their absence." https://www.eurogamer.net/starfield-review

@39c11d1e constantly loading places is i think it's biggest problem. At least they could've given us a minigame like thing while loading or let us walk in the spaceship and metro, even that could've given some immersion.

@39c11d1e Did you give a try to Elite Dangerous? I follow the Elite saga since the 80s (yes, I'm THAT old!) and I loved a lot of the elements of ED. All the known stars in the game are in the exact position of the real stars in the Milky Way. ED is a bit old now (2014) but, in terms of "realistic" exploration it's still an excellent game.

@39c11d1e I have played every Elder Scrolls and Fallout game Bethesda has made and I won’t buy Starfield because I’m sick of the general Gambryo engine shittiness. The graphics get better, but that’s it.

@39c11d1e I called it the moment Bethesda publicly announced they were using Creation for Starfield and TES6. It's a woefully outdated engine. It has so many wild limitations that are pretty unacceptable in today's market