I must say it is not the best RPG out there, but I feel like it would have earned more. I personally have a lot of fun playing.

While it was not a Cyberpunk-grade overhype, I think it must still have been overhyped. Because if you see it as Skyrim with better graphics, it is pretty much what you’d expect.

Some of the common criticism seems to be intrinsic to the sci-fi genre. In Skyrim, you walk 100 meters and then you find some cave or camp or something that a game designer has placed there manually with some story or meaning behind it. And as a player, you notice that, because most locations in Skyrim feel somehow unique. Even though for example the dungeons have rooms that repeat a lot. Having a designer place them manually with some thought gives them something unique.

In interstellar sci-fi, a dense world like this is simply impossible. Planets are extremely large so filling them manually with content is simply not possible. And using procedural generation makes things feel meaningless. Players notice that fast. So instead, Starfield opted for having a few manually constructed locations that are placed randomly on planets, unfortunately with a lot of repetition. But that is a sound compromise, given the constraints of today’s game development technology. The dense worlds that we are used to from other genres simply don’t scale up to planetary scale, and as players, we have to get used to that.

    • thesprongler@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      10 months ago

      I guess I’m a dipshit and didn’t follow the link and assumed this was a metacritic score (which is actually 87, with a 5.6 user score).

      • dumdum666@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        10 months ago

        You are kinda toxic, but I will answer anyways: Why do you think people are that stupid to buy a game for a premium price at launch and then not play it? Or is this something you do on a regular basis?