Comment on Starfield, is it getting review bombed?
ech@lemm.ee 1 year agoYou’re right that , but also, some of the best parts of a game like this is the immersion, which doesn’t really work well with fast traveling directly from point to point on your to-do list. I think Starfield is fine, tbh, but I do agree that the amount of loading screens is excessive. Games like NMS and Elite Dangerous have been doing seamless space travel for a long time now. There’s really no excuse.
I get what you’re saying, but eliminating loading screens in a game like this just isn’t feasible.
NMS or Elite Dangerous style space travel might be, but then it would have a similarly cartoonist reduced scale. I wouldn’t mind that personally, but I get why they didn’t do it.
My primary complaint is that the cities themselves are split up into multiple zones. If Skyrim can be entirely open, so to should Jameison.
I’m not saying they need to eliminate them entirely, just agreeing that there are way too many, and “fast travel to the plot” isn’t a reasonable solution in a game like this. I do think (mostly) seamless space travel would go a very long way to helping the overall experience.
amio@kbin.social 1 year ago
The excuse is the engine they refuse to let die. It's not a good excuse, but that's a lot of the trademark Bethesda wonk.
ech@lemm.ee 1 year ago
Yeah, that tracks. I get that as a company, they’re gonna wring every resource dry before ponying up the money to redevelop, but that engine’s been showing its age for a while now, and Starfield is a great concept that deserved better.