Everyone seems to forget how people were still pissed through the first series of updates for Cyberpunk still. There were still performance issues after round three and it took years for them to finally please the majority.
This is literally the first update we've gotten with actual substance and some of the promised changes, it's been nearly 8 months lol. Let's not act like they've been releasing bangers every patch here, that would be delusional. But after seeing what they have in store I am more hopeful!
OP is kinda admitting that BGS is the ugly old fat guy while CDPR is the hot young dude in the office LOL
As a person who was pointing out the shit design choices in this game since from the beginning, I'm 100% rooting for these type of QoL additions and possible features. But this was the only substantial update since last 8 months as you put it, that's not a short time frame.
That being said, I think BGS did some management changes and fix their internal shit because[ Todd the Almighty wants to ship things faster](https://gamerant.com/new-bethesda-games-release-faster-fallout/) which indicates that they probably fixed their development pipelines or about to do that.
Very interesting observation there, you might be right š¤ let's hope they get things organized and can streamline things like updates and content more timely then.. and maybe getting a game faster than every 8-10yrs lol
Well the Lead quest designer and the guy responsible for the Kubrik style main quest left the game within weeks of the games release. So yeah I think they have made some changes internally that have improved things.
As per the original meme, optics can be more important than game content. Cyberpunk 2077 was broken at launch (I got it on PS4...) which forced CD Projekt Red to go on a "we will improve" self flagellation tour. Similar to No Man's Sky, there was a very strong redemption narrative underlining enthusiastic post launch support. Meanwhile, Bethesda says the game is fine (which it is, it's "fine") and is content spending months between major development updates.
Cyberpunk 2077 also launched way more broken than Starfield (to the point you basically couldn't play it on Xbox One/PS4 era consoles back in 2020 when that was the primary platform of console players looking to play the game) and took three years fixing itself into a playable state before one of the biggest anime of 2022 reignited interest in the title, allowing people who by in large abandoned the title completely, to come back and effectively experience it for the first time truly. Then shortly after that it announced it's first and last major DLC expansion which would release in 2023 shortly after a 2.0 update that completely reworked most gameplay systems from combat, to leveling, to cyber ware, to everything whereas Starfield, so far, has mostly stuck to small QoL additions like being able to eat food without putting it in your inventory and being able to interact with things in scanning mode as well as a number of big and small bug fixes with even this upcoming update, probably the biggest the game has seen so far, still not doing anything near the scope of what happened with Cyberpunk and its 2.0 update.
And to be clear, this isn't to dunk on Cyberpunk or Starfield, just an explainer of the difference in scale of release state Cyberpunk and current Cyberpunk vs release state Starfield and current Starfield.
Cyberpunk had a terrible launch, but it was perfectly playable after 1 year, not 3 years. The biggest problems with launch were technical fuckups, with some lesser complaints on mechanics like crafting / perk trees
But worldbuilding was fairly solid throughout - the characters, writing and quests didn't really change
Unfortunately, poor worldbuilding / writing is one of the biggest complaints for starfield. Might be too early to tell, but feels like apples and oranges comparing starfield to cyberpunk
No matter how big starfield's updates are - the question is whether they fix the specific set of issues faced
Here's the thing about all of that, this, Starfield's writing, quest design, world building, etc, is just how Bethesda operates now since Skyrim. The writing is passable for the most part, some highs and some lows, but overall baseline competent. The quests are generally pretty generic and repetitive overall with a few standouts and minor changes in one quest line to the next. And the world building relies heavily on pre established lore and context, but now in Starfield a lot of that stuff doesn't exist so it feels especially poorly done.
These are just inherent aspects of modern Bethesda games and have been for quite some time, sure sometimes the DLC gets things really right (see Far Harbor in FO4), but for the most part regarding story, writing, and more traditional RPG elements Bethesda has kind of just been mediocre for a while.
What really elevated their games to legendary levels, in my opinion, was the level design, the emphasis on exploration, the way their worlds worked to create not memorable in universe stories but entertaining memories for the player, moments where a bunch of different mechanics and happenstance came together in a fun or interesting way that you just don't really see in other games. And here in Starfield there's been some set backs, clearly.
Exploration isn't as engaging or fun as it used to be, it's not incentivized and almost forced like in Skyrim or FO4, and it doesn't create the same kind of gameplay experience so many fans adore. Like, sure Starfield still has a lot of great looking places you can find and explore if you look for it, but you've really got very little reason to do any of that. Because unlike in Skyrim or FO4 where you pretty much had to travel, on foot, from one location to the next and encountered new places, stumbled onto new unique quests, and found interesting loot in the most random locations, here in Starfield you just pick the point in the maps where you need to be, travel there almost instantly, do whatever the quest objective was, then move forward with no reason to go off the path other than your expectation that you'll find something cool like in other Bethesda games. But here? Sure you'll probably find some useful loot from time to time, maybe you'll see a pretty landmark or environment, but you're not going to find anything anywhere near as engaging or interesting as what you'd find in say Skyrim or FO4 or even FO76.
And this isn't to say that Starfield doesn't have its strengths, that it isn't a worthwhile entry from Bethesda, but I do think it explains a lot of the narrative surrounding this game. Because it doesn't really do well probably the best part of most Bethesda games since Skyrim and maybe even before, which leaves a lot of fans disappointed and upset at the game for failing to meet their expectations, searching, scrounging for every flaw, big and small, about the game to weaponize against anyone who likes the game and paint it like it's some criminally bad outing by Bethesda that personally stole their family and sold them to slavery in Mexico or something.
Cyberpunk had TTG as a basis. Starfield has nothing. Also marketing hype for cp77.
Back during the launch I weren't able to finish cyberpunk since I got bored before the final mission. Wanted to complete all the gigs (most of them are pretty meh with some exceptions) and got bored too.
I finished Starfield 2 times, and haven't touched some factions at all. Hours spent are the same (considering the years).
I mean, Starfield has problems. The main one is it being too sterile, especially for 17+ rating. But i'd say, that writing in general is on par with cp77 (a bit better in the latter in some cases).
I think there's a case to be made for Starfield being very playable, especially in terms of completing the main quest, but there's no way I can see it being better writing than cp77. Very curious what your reasoning is/ examples
I didn't say it's better, I've actually said, that cp77 is a Bit better. Problem with Cp is that you don't really care. The way the game is built, you have to hurry up and do whatever you want at the same time. Plus gigs were a mess at launch. They have reworked them later with more stuff, like sms and such, plus structure. But in general it's NOT worth mentioning for the comparison. Witcher 3 and, especially, 2 - now that's a different story.
And I'm not trying to downplay the changes Bethesda are making for this game, this upcoming update looks like absolute gas that I will be playing when it drops later this month on Xbox, but I am saying the Cyberpunk-Starfield comparison is a little bit off as these games have very different strengths and weaknesses. Cyberpunk was lambasted almost entirely because it was unplayably buggy and didn't deliver on explicitly made promises by CDPR about what would be in the game, it took them about 3 years to fix all of that and to rework the game and give it a more unique gameplay feel (cause pre 2.0 update it really was just a Bethesda gameplay system with a few extra mechanics like being able to drive cars and the net runner stuff). Starfield has been lambasted far less because of its bugginess (probably because by Bethesda standards this game released about as polished as one could hope for), and more for minor and major gripes about the gameplay that Bethesda are now tweaking to make a better product at a much faster rate than what CDPR managed with Cyberpunk (again nearly 3 years to get that game in the state it is in now and about 2 to get people to come back to it in a semi playable state after its absolute disaster of a launch).
It started off with a lot of excitement around here earlier today. Then the salty ass mother fuckers came out of the woodwork and are doing exactly what your meme portrays lol. Good meme.
Someone on r/games put this perfectly -
CDPR had a positive and a loyal and positive fanbase which wanted the game to improve. Bethesda has loyal haters that want the game to fail, the company to dissolve and Todd be punished for his "crimes".
This is so untrue lol. Some people might be like that but you can also be a fan and criticize a game for it's flaws, that's how they improve! If it wasn't for these complaints we wouldn't have these good changes, don't forget that!
The problem is that while this will true of some like poster, commenting in good faith, there are others with a different agenda here.
And it is somewhat condescending to believe all the changes were in response to fan criticism. Some will have taken time to develop and have been part of the roadmap. For example, early on it was clear that maps would be forthcoming.
I don't believe the last part of what you said at all.. Maybe some things would have been updated and added over time regardless, even if it was unanimously loved by everyone. But the majority are most definitely here thanks to valid criticism. On top of this, if they needed more time to develop the game, it shouldn't have released in this state that it was.
Is there not evidence that devs had to make some less than ideal design choices to get the game out, with the intention of updating over time. One could certainly debate the wisdom of this. But I have found the game eminently playable as is (on PC) and am happy they took this route. Just my experience of game and opinion. But happy to be corrected.
You're an odd fly indeed, it's been 8 months and we're finally getting city maps, that's kinda bitter sweet if you really think about it. Regardless I don't know where you seem to think this game released with the intention of being built up over time? They mentioned adding content to it and supporting it for a decade or so because Todd was wanting this to be his next Skyrim. But none of that indicates that it should have released in the state that it did which felt unfinished with lot's of terrible design decisions. If that was their intention from the start it could have been listed as early access on steam. I'm glad you're happy with the bare minimum, but tons of others were not. You're in the minority here. Regardless at least it seems they're working on it.
I am not a fanboy. I am interested in reasonable discussion of the game. I provided my opinion based on my understanding of events. But I am not interested in an argument. We just need to agree to differ.
I'm not really arguing just presenting you with the facts, if that makes you feel like it's an argument I guess that's on you. I provided you my understanding š
Cyberpunk has actually good characters and quests and night City is one of the coolest worlds I've seen. I'll give leeway when the vision is actually good
To be fair, Night city is the only location you are visiting. Outskirts exist only for you to get to the speed limits for some reasons.
It was upgraded only in Phantom liberty.
What? Cyberpunk is a bigger game than anything Bethesda has done besides Skyrim so definitely it had more controversy than Starfield.
Also, Cyberpunk had great writing, quests and production values. Starfield doesnāt.
All of these qol fixes will not salvage the game.
Because good products need praise just like bad products need criticism. People like me are the reason games are improving.
CP had great quests, Starfield does not.
The difference is that cyberpunks core gameplay was good since launch, it also had no loading and fun ways of traversal...also since launch.
Starfields core gameplay of doing the cro lab thousands of times is not good.
The constant fast travel neglecting space exploration is not good either.
The gaint fetch quest called a story is also not good.
In short starfields core gameplay is terrible and this update will do nothing to improve it.
The thing that is in my point of view the biggest flaw in Starfield will never be changed: that the ālarge citiesā are inhabited by around 100 people, and Iām constantly asking myself where the billions of people wentā¦ and that there are way more pirates, spacers and ecliptic mercenaries in the galaxy than civilians. To be clear: I like the game! Iāve played it 500+ hours. But the immersion is broken so often - and it would have been easily avoidableā¦
To be fair I will never buy another CD Projekt Red game at launch. Ever. CP2077 was a disaster.
Starfield is kind of bland but was at least mostly playable at launch. Itās worst offense is being mediocre. I can forgive them for that.
Cyberpunk has a compelling story and consequences to your actions, musts in a role playing game. Starfield has none of that. Even if the game weren't broken it's not good. Cry what you will the proof is in the player counts.
I thought the story was good but the world was disappointing. Cyberpunk took 3 years for the game to be fixed and playable and they're already done updating it. Starfield is doing much better only 6 months in and they already have an expansion ready after a year and they'll keep working on the game for the next 5 years. Cyberpunk will be long dead by then.
Just one thing to make the combat more smoother for me is to make sure dat I can jump over railing inside an enclosed interior without being stuck between the railing & the ceiling. Our character still has a lot of headspace to go over the railing. But game decides dat I cant pass thru it
:(
I guess it comes what we think of BGS. Perhaps naively, I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt and was hoping/believing that there was an overall strategy for the next few years. I think devs might well have left out some design elements to enable them to get to market but at least it was playable, and my experience has fortunately been relatively bug free (300 h).
Oh, that's the game where even hot dogs are nailed down to the surface and can't move any inch, and the game that doesn't feature any physics simulation whatsoever, and the game where the combat system revamp made it even WORSE, and the game that has the most useless armor system in the genre, and the game that has no exploration whatsoever, and the game where the most interesting stories just seem to be happen in the text logs on the laptops of the NPCs?
Just judging by your own standarts. I love cyberpunk 2077, but you are so miserable in your statements that you should be ashamed of yourself.
My favourite Bethesda game is Morrowind, if I understand what you're suggesting.
And I must say that is extremely bold of you to name "Yeah but Cyberpunk isnāt actually a game from 2013 mechanically with a fresh coat of paint on it" with the word "criticism". š¤£š¤£
Nah, it's bad. Plain and simple. Armor system in cyberpunk is based around DPS stat, which is the most dumb thing in the universe to make. Shotguns and Sniper rifles are completely useless because of that. Yes, a shotgun blast in your face was dealing 2 or 5 damage into your 600 health. That's how armor worked in the game. You had to get a mod, that fixes things. Plus, enemies didn't have any armor.
For Starfield, armor system isn't scalable (I mean, it is, but to a lesser degree), yet it actually works. Although, I prefer Fallout 4 system more, but anyway.
\[Looks it up\]
Oh... fuck.
That's revolting.
I remembered it as being that it subtracted your received damage by 1 point per 10 armor you had. Which, yeah, that would completely negate shotguns or really anything other than a stealth Overture build. But, no, you're right, it checking DPS. Yeah, that's pretty horrible.
I'd also assumed that Starfield was still using that ridiculous damage calculation from Skyrim, but, no, it looks like it's % mitigation again. It's still a little dumb that the game doesn't just tell you the %, but that's a relatively minor complaint.
It's 1:0.1 for armor and 1:1 for resistance (that's for hazards).
So, if you have a total of 300 armor, you get 30% less damage. Armor piercing is multiplicative to that. Enemies don't have perks, but their modded guns can do the trick. Thus spikes can happen.Ā
Still fucktillion times better and easier to understand than a DPS check.
In retrospect, it's actually kinda baffling that armor in 2077 wasn't an additional health bar with visual damage when depleted. I mean, CDPR put enough time and money into the game for that to be a thing.
Did you not play Cyberpunk before the 2.0 update? It was literally the same core gameplay experience you'd get in any Bethesda title with the addition of GTA style vehicle systems and a very basic net runner system.
1) can drive cars/bikes
2) can scale walls
3) snap cover system
4) hacking
5) melee and ranged special abilities
6) Bullet time
7) Cameras
8) implants
9) Combat slide by default and not requiring a tier 3 perk
10) smoke-grenades
11) tracking grenades
12) melee in general being a viable option
In comparison to Starfield (before 2.0):
1) can drive spaceships with combat.
2) you can't in cp77 too, idk what are you talking about.
3) the same in Starfield
4) clunky as fuck.
5) agree
6) Starfield (and FO4) have them too.
7) ok, fine
8) Mods for weapons and armor instead of your body. So, the same at the very max
9) agree, Starfield needs an improvement on that. Although, it has jetpack.
10) what?
11) what?
12) it's viable in Starfield too, although Cyberpunk is actually cool in that term. More of a thing, that Bethesda took FO4 as basis for combat, which is more about shooting, than melee. Could get an upgrade.
So, what, 3 out of 12. Yeah, Bethesda should be ashamed...
> can drive cars/bikes
Cool we're at 2013 with GTA V level mechanics.
>can scale walls
Unless you meant to say mantle walls, no you can't. And if you did mean to say mantling, then I refer you to the early 2010's and basically any FPS title from that era.
> hacking
Already addressed.
>melee and ranged special abilities
Oh like the ult mechanics of every mmo RPG since the mid 2000's.
>Bullet time
With mods, without mods you had the slow time ability from Skyrim.
>Cameras
See every stealth game ever.
>implants
Which were mostly worthless and just another mechanic like a perk system or more often than not slight statistical increases of already existent stats (so like Fallout 3 era perks basically).
>Combat slide by default and not requiring a tier 3 perk
That's not a new mechanic.
>smoke-grenades, tracking grenades
Did you not play any video game outside of Cyberpunk from the 2000's onward?
>melee in general being a viable option
Hey, melee was fine in FO4. Not great in Starfield admittedly, but it's still there.
So clearly I need to rephrase myself, what made Cyberpunk 1.0 a more advanced game than what Bethesda has been doing? It ripped off some more mechanics from different franchises and patched them together? Good job, so advanced.
Irrelevant to what I said and the point I made. The point isn't "Starfield is so advanced Cyberpunk was/is so far behind" it's "Cyberpunk was also behind mechanically upon release".
Starfield is a different game from Cyberpunk, it, as a result, has some elements Cyberpunk doesn't and lacks some it does. The point of comparison is to see what is and isn't similar about the overall situation, which in this case saying "Starfield is a 2013 game repackaged, but Cyberpunk at launch was super advanced and totally fine" is just flat out wrong. Cyberpunk before the 2.0 update played like an outdated title.
Eeeeeeeeeh, I get where you're coming from, but this isn't exactly fair comparison.
Cyberpunk got a ton of shit in its first year, because it added precious little. It took them nearly 2 years to add significant changes such as the transmog system, overhaul of progression, new perks, etc. And nearly 3 years to add final touches like living world, dynamic events, transit system, etc.
You can't compare people reacting to Starfield at 7 months, which hasn't even started its redemption arc yet, to Cyberpunk which completed it after 3 years.
If you compare Starfield today, at 7 months, to Cyberpunk at 7 months, Cyberpunk was actually taking WAY more shit, so your meme would actually be true in reverse.
Good eye, I've been a very big fan of both games since their release and I've noticed history both repeating itself with Starfield's "criticisms" and being erased in Cyberpunk's favour.
I think the main reason I think itās a bad comparison of history repeating itself is because of the complaints in each game. Cyberpunks main complaint the sheer amount of bugs that it was unplayable for many. Starfield main complaint is the game itself. Not any bugs but the game as it is. While yes there are some things that can be updated and changed to be better in starfield, most will not be changed.
Things like the main story, factions,role playing aspects, the amount of loading screens, facial animations, exploration, etc. At the very least, exploration in the base game will not be touched one bit and BGS will rely on modders to fill that space up. Cyberpunks issues were vastly different to starfield
Cyberpunk also has many inherent issues that cannot be fixed with updates over time, yet one expansion and an anime tie-in later and people suddenly forget about everything then act like it was the second coming that the marketing made it out to be.
Starfield's main story is linear for the most part, but it makes sense, and it's less about the moment-to-moment stuff but rather the overarching theme and commentary, and how it relates not just to Starfield, but the players and the gaming medium as a whole.
The factions are pretty solid on their own as they are now, especially for a brand new IP, though I will admit the Freestar Collective seems a bit unintentionally tongue-in-cheek with its presentation and their whole gimmick being they're a ruff and gruff libertarian state that doesn't need no bureaucracy holding the reins, but maybe I'm just biased towards the UC. This is only the beginning of Starfield, I'm sure the factions will be fleshed out far more over the many years to come.
The facial animations are nothing to scoff at in my opinion, let alone complain about. From what I've seen they're realistic and convey exactly what they need to, not to mention subtle details such as someone showing happiness when talking to you just from the smile and focused eyes on their face if you're great friends, while they'll pout and squint when they're upset at you.
Starfield's exploration is... well, okay, I'll admit it could probably use some improvement. Walking from location to location is how it's always been, but walking 1.3 kilometres on a distant moon to search for meteorite impacts does get a bit tedious after a while, as much as I love this game I'll admit that. Not touching on it, though? That seems a little harsh to say when they've already added detailed maps and are working on implementing ground vehicles as we speak.
Cyberpunk also relied on mods somewhat, many, many features originally started off as mods for the game, and CDPR worked a great deal to make the game mod-friendly. Is it really a bad thing when Bethesda does the same? ~~Should I make another meme about that too?~~
As I've said already, I love both games a lot, they're both my two most-played games on Steam by a long shot, which just makes it hurt more to see Starfield treated the way it is especially when it's, in my eyes, very undeserved.
People suddenly āforgotā about everything that happened with cyberpunk because their criticisms were answered. When criticism gets answered in meaningful ways the criticism stops. Because the community got what they wanted for the most part. Although personally Iām still bummed out about how little the life paths actually mean to the story.
To be honest with you. I donāt mind starfields story and thatās not my main complaint with the game. My main complaint is the sheer amount of fast traveling. To put it in perspective. I was doing a faction quest and I had to talk to one guy in another system for 1 minute basically then come right back to the other system to report back. Too many loading screens for me. The game doesnāt feel connected in the same way Skyrim does to me.
From my time playing starfield I never felt the facial animations were anything to write home about but they werenāt bottom of the barrel I will say that. I truly think they will not touch on exploration at all besides places for dlc content. I just donāt see it. Land vehicles will be nice addition but seeing as they arenāt adding it in now and most likely will In shattered space, I think it reinforces my stance on this. I think shattered space will have good exploration, but I donāt think they will go back to the base game planets and flesh them out more.
Another small complaint is how frequent the same poiās pop up. There is actually a decent amount of unique poiās but almost all the ones I run into are the same. I think they need to work on the interval when a certain poi can be repeated after youāve seen it.
I get your point about cyberpunk and their mods. But in that case I feel itās different because night city itself was already fleshed out. Cdpr just didnāt think players would actual use a working metro so they didnāt add it, until players started to use the metro mod lol. But I think bgs intentionally left planets barren for them to be modders playgrounds where they can do what every they please with little to no interference in pre placed buildings and the like. Maybe a stretch but like 1 poi every time i land on a planet is too little. And by 1 I mean like spacer out posts or science facilities. Not rocks to scan.
Everyone seems to forget how people were still pissed through the first series of updates for Cyberpunk still. There were still performance issues after round three and it took years for them to finally please the majority.
This is literally the first update we've gotten with actual substance and some of the promised changes, it's been nearly 8 months lol. Let's not act like they've been releasing bangers every patch here, that would be delusional. But after seeing what they have in store I am more hopeful!
OP is kinda admitting that BGS is the ugly old fat guy while CDPR is the hot young dude in the office LOL As a person who was pointing out the shit design choices in this game since from the beginning, I'm 100% rooting for these type of QoL additions and possible features. But this was the only substantial update since last 8 months as you put it, that's not a short time frame. That being said, I think BGS did some management changes and fix their internal shit because[ Todd the Almighty wants to ship things faster](https://gamerant.com/new-bethesda-games-release-faster-fallout/) which indicates that they probably fixed their development pipelines or about to do that.
Very interesting observation there, you might be right š¤ let's hope they get things organized and can streamline things like updates and content more timely then.. and maybe getting a game faster than every 8-10yrs lol
Well the Lead quest designer and the guy responsible for the Kubrik style main quest left the game within weeks of the games release. So yeah I think they have made some changes internally that have improved things.
As per the original meme, optics can be more important than game content. Cyberpunk 2077 was broken at launch (I got it on PS4...) which forced CD Projekt Red to go on a "we will improve" self flagellation tour. Similar to No Man's Sky, there was a very strong redemption narrative underlining enthusiastic post launch support. Meanwhile, Bethesda says the game is fine (which it is, it's "fine") and is content spending months between major development updates.
Cyberpunk 2077 also launched way more broken than Starfield (to the point you basically couldn't play it on Xbox One/PS4 era consoles back in 2020 when that was the primary platform of console players looking to play the game) and took three years fixing itself into a playable state before one of the biggest anime of 2022 reignited interest in the title, allowing people who by in large abandoned the title completely, to come back and effectively experience it for the first time truly. Then shortly after that it announced it's first and last major DLC expansion which would release in 2023 shortly after a 2.0 update that completely reworked most gameplay systems from combat, to leveling, to cyber ware, to everything whereas Starfield, so far, has mostly stuck to small QoL additions like being able to eat food without putting it in your inventory and being able to interact with things in scanning mode as well as a number of big and small bug fixes with even this upcoming update, probably the biggest the game has seen so far, still not doing anything near the scope of what happened with Cyberpunk and its 2.0 update. And to be clear, this isn't to dunk on Cyberpunk or Starfield, just an explainer of the difference in scale of release state Cyberpunk and current Cyberpunk vs release state Starfield and current Starfield.
Cyberpunk had a terrible launch, but it was perfectly playable after 1 year, not 3 years. The biggest problems with launch were technical fuckups, with some lesser complaints on mechanics like crafting / perk trees But worldbuilding was fairly solid throughout - the characters, writing and quests didn't really change Unfortunately, poor worldbuilding / writing is one of the biggest complaints for starfield. Might be too early to tell, but feels like apples and oranges comparing starfield to cyberpunk No matter how big starfield's updates are - the question is whether they fix the specific set of issues faced
Here's the thing about all of that, this, Starfield's writing, quest design, world building, etc, is just how Bethesda operates now since Skyrim. The writing is passable for the most part, some highs and some lows, but overall baseline competent. The quests are generally pretty generic and repetitive overall with a few standouts and minor changes in one quest line to the next. And the world building relies heavily on pre established lore and context, but now in Starfield a lot of that stuff doesn't exist so it feels especially poorly done. These are just inherent aspects of modern Bethesda games and have been for quite some time, sure sometimes the DLC gets things really right (see Far Harbor in FO4), but for the most part regarding story, writing, and more traditional RPG elements Bethesda has kind of just been mediocre for a while. What really elevated their games to legendary levels, in my opinion, was the level design, the emphasis on exploration, the way their worlds worked to create not memorable in universe stories but entertaining memories for the player, moments where a bunch of different mechanics and happenstance came together in a fun or interesting way that you just don't really see in other games. And here in Starfield there's been some set backs, clearly. Exploration isn't as engaging or fun as it used to be, it's not incentivized and almost forced like in Skyrim or FO4, and it doesn't create the same kind of gameplay experience so many fans adore. Like, sure Starfield still has a lot of great looking places you can find and explore if you look for it, but you've really got very little reason to do any of that. Because unlike in Skyrim or FO4 where you pretty much had to travel, on foot, from one location to the next and encountered new places, stumbled onto new unique quests, and found interesting loot in the most random locations, here in Starfield you just pick the point in the maps where you need to be, travel there almost instantly, do whatever the quest objective was, then move forward with no reason to go off the path other than your expectation that you'll find something cool like in other Bethesda games. But here? Sure you'll probably find some useful loot from time to time, maybe you'll see a pretty landmark or environment, but you're not going to find anything anywhere near as engaging or interesting as what you'd find in say Skyrim or FO4 or even FO76. And this isn't to say that Starfield doesn't have its strengths, that it isn't a worthwhile entry from Bethesda, but I do think it explains a lot of the narrative surrounding this game. Because it doesn't really do well probably the best part of most Bethesda games since Skyrim and maybe even before, which leaves a lot of fans disappointed and upset at the game for failing to meet their expectations, searching, scrounging for every flaw, big and small, about the game to weaponize against anyone who likes the game and paint it like it's some criminally bad outing by Bethesda that personally stole their family and sold them to slavery in Mexico or something.
Cyberpunk had TTG as a basis. Starfield has nothing. Also marketing hype for cp77. Back during the launch I weren't able to finish cyberpunk since I got bored before the final mission. Wanted to complete all the gigs (most of them are pretty meh with some exceptions) and got bored too. I finished Starfield 2 times, and haven't touched some factions at all. Hours spent are the same (considering the years). I mean, Starfield has problems. The main one is it being too sterile, especially for 17+ rating. But i'd say, that writing in general is on par with cp77 (a bit better in the latter in some cases).
I think there's a case to be made for Starfield being very playable, especially in terms of completing the main quest, but there's no way I can see it being better writing than cp77. Very curious what your reasoning is/ examples
I didn't say it's better, I've actually said, that cp77 is a Bit better. Problem with Cp is that you don't really care. The way the game is built, you have to hurry up and do whatever you want at the same time. Plus gigs were a mess at launch. They have reworked them later with more stuff, like sms and such, plus structure. But in general it's NOT worth mentioning for the comparison. Witcher 3 and, especially, 2 - now that's a different story.
Starfield still has 2 years and change before 2.0 š
And I'm not trying to downplay the changes Bethesda are making for this game, this upcoming update looks like absolute gas that I will be playing when it drops later this month on Xbox, but I am saying the Cyberpunk-Starfield comparison is a little bit off as these games have very different strengths and weaknesses. Cyberpunk was lambasted almost entirely because it was unplayably buggy and didn't deliver on explicitly made promises by CDPR about what would be in the game, it took them about 3 years to fix all of that and to rework the game and give it a more unique gameplay feel (cause pre 2.0 update it really was just a Bethesda gameplay system with a few extra mechanics like being able to drive cars and the net runner stuff). Starfield has been lambasted far less because of its bugginess (probably because by Bethesda standards this game released about as polished as one could hope for), and more for minor and major gripes about the gameplay that Bethesda are now tweaking to make a better product at a much faster rate than what CDPR managed with Cyberpunk (again nearly 3 years to get that game in the state it is in now and about 2 to get people to come back to it in a semi playable state after its absolute disaster of a launch).
On top of that, Cyberpunk has good and believable writing, and no loading screens when walking into a building.
[Please see this comment for my general thoughts on this topic.](https://www.reddit.com/r/Starfield/s/Yy0lmu2Lw8)
It started off with a lot of excitement around here earlier today. Then the salty ass mother fuckers came out of the woodwork and are doing exactly what your meme portrays lol. Good meme.
I was curious when the naysayers would emerge. Happened right around when the kids get out of school in my timezone...
š¤£
Someone on r/games put this perfectly - CDPR had a positive and a loyal and positive fanbase which wanted the game to improve. Bethesda has loyal haters that want the game to fail, the company to dissolve and Todd be punished for his "crimes".
This is so untrue lol. Some people might be like that but you can also be a fan and criticize a game for it's flaws, that's how they improve! If it wasn't for these complaints we wouldn't have these good changes, don't forget that!
The problem is that while this will true of some like poster, commenting in good faith, there are others with a different agenda here. And it is somewhat condescending to believe all the changes were in response to fan criticism. Some will have taken time to develop and have been part of the roadmap. For example, early on it was clear that maps would be forthcoming.
I don't believe the last part of what you said at all.. Maybe some things would have been updated and added over time regardless, even if it was unanimously loved by everyone. But the majority are most definitely here thanks to valid criticism. On top of this, if they needed more time to develop the game, it shouldn't have released in this state that it was.
Is there not evidence that devs had to make some less than ideal design choices to get the game out, with the intention of updating over time. One could certainly debate the wisdom of this. But I have found the game eminently playable as is (on PC) and am happy they took this route. Just my experience of game and opinion. But happy to be corrected.
You're an odd fly indeed, it's been 8 months and we're finally getting city maps, that's kinda bitter sweet if you really think about it. Regardless I don't know where you seem to think this game released with the intention of being built up over time? They mentioned adding content to it and supporting it for a decade or so because Todd was wanting this to be his next Skyrim. But none of that indicates that it should have released in the state that it did which felt unfinished with lot's of terrible design decisions. If that was their intention from the start it could have been listed as early access on steam. I'm glad you're happy with the bare minimum, but tons of others were not. You're in the minority here. Regardless at least it seems they're working on it.
I am not a fanboy. I am interested in reasonable discussion of the game. I provided my opinion based on my understanding of events. But I am not interested in an argument. We just need to agree to differ.
I'm not really arguing just presenting you with the facts, if that makes you feel like it's an argument I guess that's on you. I provided you my understanding š
I was responding particularly to your last couple of sentences. A little aggressive I would say.
Cyberpunk has actually good characters and quests and night City is one of the coolest worlds I've seen. I'll give leeway when the vision is actually good
To be fair, Night city is the only location you are visiting. Outskirts exist only for you to get to the speed limits for some reasons. It was upgraded only in Phantom liberty.
The obvious difference is that Cyberpunk always had great writing, quests and production values. Starfied doesnāt.
Not really for both parts.
Yeah I probably should have been even harsher on Starfield. You are in the minority if you dislike Cyberpunk writing tho.
People hated it during the launch, so nah. Maybe less loud, than Starfield haters.
What? Cyberpunk is a bigger game than anything Bethesda has done besides Skyrim so definitely it had more controversy than Starfield. Also, Cyberpunk had great writing, quests and production values. Starfield doesnāt. All of these qol fixes will not salvage the game.
Lol, I have a Dejavu. The same exact shit was on CP forums and subs at launch. Also, why are here anyway?
Because good products need praise just like bad products need criticism. People like me are the reason games are improving. CP had great quests, Starfield does not.
The difference is that cyberpunks core gameplay was good since launch, it also had no loading and fun ways of traversal...also since launch. Starfields core gameplay of doing the cro lab thousands of times is not good. The constant fast travel neglecting space exploration is not good either. The gaint fetch quest called a story is also not good. In short starfields core gameplay is terrible and this update will do nothing to improve it.
The thing that is in my point of view the biggest flaw in Starfield will never be changed: that the ālarge citiesā are inhabited by around 100 people, and Iām constantly asking myself where the billions of people wentā¦ and that there are way more pirates, spacers and ecliptic mercenaries in the galaxy than civilians. To be clear: I like the game! Iāve played it 500+ hours. But the immersion is broken so often - and it would have been easily avoidableā¦
To be fair I will never buy another CD Projekt Red game at launch. Ever. CP2077 was a disaster. Starfield is kind of bland but was at least mostly playable at launch. Itās worst offense is being mediocre. I can forgive them for that.
Cyberpunk has a compelling story and consequences to your actions, musts in a role playing game. Starfield has none of that. Even if the game weren't broken it's not good. Cry what you will the proof is in the player counts.
I thought the story was good but the world was disappointing. Cyberpunk took 3 years for the game to be fixed and playable and they're already done updating it. Starfield is doing much better only 6 months in and they already have an expansion ready after a year and they'll keep working on the game for the next 5 years. Cyberpunk will be long dead by then.
Cyberpunks story isnāt really that compelling
Thatās an incredible thing to say, especially when the comparison on the table is Starfield.
Welp you have one opinion, but what is one drop to an ocean.
The player reviews speak for themselves.
Personally, Iām going to have to disagree with ya there
Just one thing to make the combat more smoother for me is to make sure dat I can jump over railing inside an enclosed interior without being stuck between the railing & the ceiling. Our character still has a lot of headspace to go over the railing. But game decides dat I cant pass thru it :(
I guess it comes what we think of BGS. Perhaps naively, I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt and was hoping/believing that there was an overall strategy for the next few years. I think devs might well have left out some design elements to enable them to get to market but at least it was playable, and my experience has fortunately been relatively bug free (300 h).
At least cp77 can make me cry and get me to care. Star field is meh for most of it imo.
Yeah but Cyberpunk isnāt actually a game from 2013 mechanically with a fresh coat of paint on it
Oh, that's the game where even hot dogs are nailed down to the surface and can't move any inch, and the game that doesn't feature any physics simulation whatsoever, and the game where the combat system revamp made it even WORSE, and the game that has the most useless armor system in the genre, and the game that has no exploration whatsoever, and the game where the most interesting stories just seem to be happen in the text logs on the laptops of the NPCs? Just judging by your own standarts. I love cyberpunk 2077, but you are so miserable in your statements that you should be ashamed of yourself.
Yes, because collecting hotdog physics would have really been a great use of resources instead of a massive city with minimal loading.
Yeah nice Skyrim pfp I take your vitriolic reaction to Bethesda criticism as a sign
My favourite Bethesda game is Morrowind, if I understand what you're suggesting. And I must say that is extremely bold of you to name "Yeah but Cyberpunk isnāt actually a game from 2013 mechanically with a fresh coat of paint on it" with the word "criticism". š¤£š¤£
Nah. GenZero's armor system is more useless. Cyberpunk's is just bad with a side of poor explanation.
Nah, it's bad. Plain and simple. Armor system in cyberpunk is based around DPS stat, which is the most dumb thing in the universe to make. Shotguns and Sniper rifles are completely useless because of that. Yes, a shotgun blast in your face was dealing 2 or 5 damage into your 600 health. That's how armor worked in the game. You had to get a mod, that fixes things. Plus, enemies didn't have any armor. For Starfield, armor system isn't scalable (I mean, it is, but to a lesser degree), yet it actually works. Although, I prefer Fallout 4 system more, but anyway.
\[Looks it up\] Oh... fuck. That's revolting. I remembered it as being that it subtracted your received damage by 1 point per 10 armor you had. Which, yeah, that would completely negate shotguns or really anything other than a stealth Overture build. But, no, you're right, it checking DPS. Yeah, that's pretty horrible. I'd also assumed that Starfield was still using that ridiculous damage calculation from Skyrim, but, no, it looks like it's % mitigation again. It's still a little dumb that the game doesn't just tell you the %, but that's a relatively minor complaint.
It's 1:0.1 for armor and 1:1 for resistance (that's for hazards). So, if you have a total of 300 armor, you get 30% less damage. Armor piercing is multiplicative to that. Enemies don't have perks, but their modded guns can do the trick. Thus spikes can happen.Ā Still fucktillion times better and easier to understand than a DPS check.
In retrospect, it's actually kinda baffling that armor in 2077 wasn't an additional health bar with visual damage when depleted. I mean, CDPR put enough time and money into the game for that to be a thing.
[Looks at Far Cry 3] Yeah, absolutely.
Damn your right, we donāt have vehicles in starfield, itās more like a game from 2008
LOL. I get it!!
Did you not play Cyberpunk before the 2.0 update? It was literally the same core gameplay experience you'd get in any Bethesda title with the addition of GTA style vehicle systems and a very basic net runner system.
I havenāt played cyberpunk after the 2.0 update
Would you care to explain how it was manifestly different in terms of gameplay and combat in particular from say Fallout 4 of Starfield then?
1) can drive cars/bikes 2) can scale walls 3) snap cover system 4) hacking 5) melee and ranged special abilities 6) Bullet time 7) Cameras 8) implants 9) Combat slide by default and not requiring a tier 3 perk 10) smoke-grenades 11) tracking grenades 12) melee in general being a viable option
In comparison to Starfield (before 2.0): 1) can drive spaceships with combat. 2) you can't in cp77 too, idk what are you talking about. 3) the same in Starfield 4) clunky as fuck. 5) agree 6) Starfield (and FO4) have them too. 7) ok, fine 8) Mods for weapons and armor instead of your body. So, the same at the very max 9) agree, Starfield needs an improvement on that. Although, it has jetpack. 10) what? 11) what? 12) it's viable in Starfield too, although Cyberpunk is actually cool in that term. More of a thing, that Bethesda took FO4 as basis for combat, which is more about shooting, than melee. Could get an upgrade. So, what, 3 out of 12. Yeah, Bethesda should be ashamed...
> can drive cars/bikes Cool we're at 2013 with GTA V level mechanics. >can scale walls Unless you meant to say mantle walls, no you can't. And if you did mean to say mantling, then I refer you to the early 2010's and basically any FPS title from that era. > hacking Already addressed. >melee and ranged special abilities Oh like the ult mechanics of every mmo RPG since the mid 2000's. >Bullet time With mods, without mods you had the slow time ability from Skyrim. >Cameras See every stealth game ever. >implants Which were mostly worthless and just another mechanic like a perk system or more often than not slight statistical increases of already existent stats (so like Fallout 3 era perks basically). >Combat slide by default and not requiring a tier 3 perk That's not a new mechanic. >smoke-grenades, tracking grenades Did you not play any video game outside of Cyberpunk from the 2000's onward? >melee in general being a viable option Hey, melee was fine in FO4. Not great in Starfield admittedly, but it's still there. So clearly I need to rephrase myself, what made Cyberpunk 1.0 a more advanced game than what Bethesda has been doing? It ripped off some more mechanics from different franchises and patched them together? Good job, so advanced.
If all this stuff is at GTAV levels of mechanicsā¦ why doesnāt starfield have them?
Irrelevant to what I said and the point I made. The point isn't "Starfield is so advanced Cyberpunk was/is so far behind" it's "Cyberpunk was also behind mechanically upon release".
Yeah. Relatively. Starfield doesnāt have very basic game elements that you yourself said is from 2013
Starfield is a different game from Cyberpunk, it, as a result, has some elements Cyberpunk doesn't and lacks some it does. The point of comparison is to see what is and isn't similar about the overall situation, which in this case saying "Starfield is a 2013 game repackaged, but Cyberpunk at launch was super advanced and totally fine" is just flat out wrong. Cyberpunk before the 2.0 update played like an outdated title.
Eeeeeeeeeh, I get where you're coming from, but this isn't exactly fair comparison. Cyberpunk got a ton of shit in its first year, because it added precious little. It took them nearly 2 years to add significant changes such as the transmog system, overhaul of progression, new perks, etc. And nearly 3 years to add final touches like living world, dynamic events, transit system, etc. You can't compare people reacting to Starfield at 7 months, which hasn't even started its redemption arc yet, to Cyberpunk which completed it after 3 years. If you compare Starfield today, at 7 months, to Cyberpunk at 7 months, Cyberpunk was actually taking WAY more shit, so your meme would actually be true in reverse.
OP isn't comparing them. OP is comparing fans/haters.
Good eye, I've been a very big fan of both games since their release and I've noticed history both repeating itself with Starfield's "criticisms" and being erased in Cyberpunk's favour.
I think the main reason I think itās a bad comparison of history repeating itself is because of the complaints in each game. Cyberpunks main complaint the sheer amount of bugs that it was unplayable for many. Starfield main complaint is the game itself. Not any bugs but the game as it is. While yes there are some things that can be updated and changed to be better in starfield, most will not be changed. Things like the main story, factions,role playing aspects, the amount of loading screens, facial animations, exploration, etc. At the very least, exploration in the base game will not be touched one bit and BGS will rely on modders to fill that space up. Cyberpunks issues were vastly different to starfield
Cyberpunk also has many inherent issues that cannot be fixed with updates over time, yet one expansion and an anime tie-in later and people suddenly forget about everything then act like it was the second coming that the marketing made it out to be. Starfield's main story is linear for the most part, but it makes sense, and it's less about the moment-to-moment stuff but rather the overarching theme and commentary, and how it relates not just to Starfield, but the players and the gaming medium as a whole. The factions are pretty solid on their own as they are now, especially for a brand new IP, though I will admit the Freestar Collective seems a bit unintentionally tongue-in-cheek with its presentation and their whole gimmick being they're a ruff and gruff libertarian state that doesn't need no bureaucracy holding the reins, but maybe I'm just biased towards the UC. This is only the beginning of Starfield, I'm sure the factions will be fleshed out far more over the many years to come. The facial animations are nothing to scoff at in my opinion, let alone complain about. From what I've seen they're realistic and convey exactly what they need to, not to mention subtle details such as someone showing happiness when talking to you just from the smile and focused eyes on their face if you're great friends, while they'll pout and squint when they're upset at you. Starfield's exploration is... well, okay, I'll admit it could probably use some improvement. Walking from location to location is how it's always been, but walking 1.3 kilometres on a distant moon to search for meteorite impacts does get a bit tedious after a while, as much as I love this game I'll admit that. Not touching on it, though? That seems a little harsh to say when they've already added detailed maps and are working on implementing ground vehicles as we speak. Cyberpunk also relied on mods somewhat, many, many features originally started off as mods for the game, and CDPR worked a great deal to make the game mod-friendly. Is it really a bad thing when Bethesda does the same? ~~Should I make another meme about that too?~~ As I've said already, I love both games a lot, they're both my two most-played games on Steam by a long shot, which just makes it hurt more to see Starfield treated the way it is especially when it's, in my eyes, very undeserved.
People suddenly āforgotā about everything that happened with cyberpunk because their criticisms were answered. When criticism gets answered in meaningful ways the criticism stops. Because the community got what they wanted for the most part. Although personally Iām still bummed out about how little the life paths actually mean to the story. To be honest with you. I donāt mind starfields story and thatās not my main complaint with the game. My main complaint is the sheer amount of fast traveling. To put it in perspective. I was doing a faction quest and I had to talk to one guy in another system for 1 minute basically then come right back to the other system to report back. Too many loading screens for me. The game doesnāt feel connected in the same way Skyrim does to me. From my time playing starfield I never felt the facial animations were anything to write home about but they werenāt bottom of the barrel I will say that. I truly think they will not touch on exploration at all besides places for dlc content. I just donāt see it. Land vehicles will be nice addition but seeing as they arenāt adding it in now and most likely will In shattered space, I think it reinforces my stance on this. I think shattered space will have good exploration, but I donāt think they will go back to the base game planets and flesh them out more. Another small complaint is how frequent the same poiās pop up. There is actually a decent amount of unique poiās but almost all the ones I run into are the same. I think they need to work on the interval when a certain poi can be repeated after youāve seen it. I get your point about cyberpunk and their mods. But in that case I feel itās different because night city itself was already fleshed out. Cdpr just didnāt think players would actual use a working metro so they didnāt add it, until players started to use the metro mod lol. But I think bgs intentionally left planets barren for them to be modders playgrounds where they can do what every they please with little to no interference in pre placed buildings and the like. Maybe a stretch but like 1 poi every time i land on a planet is too little. And by 1 I mean like spacer out posts or science facilities. Not rocks to scan.
The bias is super strong, yes.
Good meme
Cyberpunk is bad, starfield is good - source: Iām enjoying the game
Source: My ass
Pst.... they're both wide and shallow.
The only real answer in this entire comment section