Análises recentes de fedja

I'm no expert, but fun racing with lots of realism and many options.
Steep learning curve...

Soma + The Thing + The Abyss + Haggis

It's a game

"We're all living in a magical theatre show puppeteered by a madman."
*gets turned into a boar*

This is written from a Mid-Act-2-Perspective, somewhere in the Shadow Cursed Lands.

-> CONS:

Baldur's Gate 3 is not without small bugs and has crashed a couple of times - nothing abnormal or immersion breaking however.
There remain some, but very few interface woes, which will for example end up in my party attacking each other. (unintentionally)
As a mostly Bethesda-conditioned, completionst player, one might get sidetracked into oblivion, despite this not being an open world game. (not really a true negative)
Alongside this, the setting is quite specific and might require more knowledge of the lore to fully appreciate it. (this isn't necessarily a negative either)
As a result, it can be quite challenging and confusing learning the mechanics while paying attention to the story, if you are a noob like me and jump into this game blind.
I think it might have been nice in theory to have a voiced player character, but then the number of voice lines with all the different voices would have been too enormous, so this does not really count.

-> PROS:

Items, characters, the leveling system, NPC-dialogues and other decisions always seem meaningful and well integrated into the larger world, even if you know next to nothing about the lore.
The game encourages experimentation in many subtle ways that might not at all be obvious at first.
At the same time the quests are well written and the voice acting is just superb. Also, facial animations are very well executed, unlike in some other AAA games...
The huge game world holds many secrets, surprises and funny easter eggs and I never get the feeling that I have to check out a wiki in order to get a worthwhile experience from this game or to avoid missing out on important things - the story and the character's fate are very much the sum of my decisions.
Another aspect I have come to appreciate is the pacing. It never feels rushed and there is so much to discover. More than 50h into the game, I haven't even really tried out crafting or alchemy...

OVERALL 90/100 (at least)

Even after >50h of gameplay the game can still be surprising and (dialogue) decisions often have me sitting there for minutes, pondering their implications.
I´ve only played FO2 and PoE1 before in this genre, and they've kinda grown on me, but this game is on another level.
Before the final release, I completely ignored this game and i'm quite happy going into this 100% blind.

In my eyes, Larian has set new standards that future games should be measured by, which is certainly a good thing.
All in all nothing new, but it´s true.

At first, some context to my assessment:

As a huge Bethesda fan, despite many controversial changes over the years, I loved all their games up until and including FO4 (I played Daggerfall, Morrowind, Oblivion, FO3, FONV, Skyrim, FO4).

After starting strong and curious in Starfield, I stalled out after almost 60 hours. This NEVER happened to me in a Bethesda RPG. One could say I already got my money´s worth, I guess, but...

Subjectively, I believe what Bethesda actually did is to move away from the most integral aspects of their "formula" (which held it all together until now):

WORLD BUILDING, EXPLORATION and the feeling of a large, engageing and somewhat persistent world, despite LOADING SCREENS.
Instead, the much talked about FAST TRAVEL feature dominates everything, which is most striking today, where many games have learned to overcome (or hide) such obvious technical limitations.

In the past, the solid core of their games allowed me to accept the other much criticized changes, like a voiced PC, inconsequential dialogue, bugs etc., but comparing Starfield to its COMPETITORS in 2023:

-> In BG3 respectively, I can remeber almost every quest, location or item, because THEY MATTER.
QUEST DESIGN is on an entirely different level.

-> ATMOSPHERE, PRESENTATION and SETTING in Cyberpunk 2077 2.0 are comparatively much denser and bascially all of the above points for BG3 are equally valid to some degree.
COMBAT MECHANICS, SKILLS and associated PERKS are much more involved and better balanced.

-> Zelda TOTK is overall actually much closer to what I would expect from a Bethesda game when it comes to WORLD INTERACTION, PUZZLES and general EXPLORATION.

-> NO MAN'S SKY was in a far worse state at launch, their MARKETING was much more deceptive, so not all hope is lost, but how much POTENTIAL for improvement / expansion is there in Starfield's GAME ENGINE...?

The game comes across as an ensemble of largely insignificant / interchangeable items, game mechanics, decisions, dialogues and characters.
The VOICE ACTING is good overall, however the uncanny NPCs make for a very static and unnatural presentation.
Most features just feel hollowed out and often the game does not communicate them to the player well...
Some are ok on their own, like GROUND COMBAT for example. The AI on the other hand is atrocious.
SHIP BUILDING or OUTPOSTS have potential, but they are convoluted and not very impactful.
The INVETORY / UI is a joke, even by Bethesda's standards. Basically, it's on the level of DAGGERFALL, coming full circle after 27 years.

None of this is enough to make a game engageing.

I can't really point out any exceptions to its formulaic, repetitive nature.
Its PROC-GEN-infused DNA shows clearly whenever the game fails to suspend the player's disbelief.
Why are there beer bottles, food and camping chairs outdoors on -150°C ice planets...?!
That is just cheap.
Perhaps one would have to play for another 50 to 100 hours for it to "get good", but I personally don't want to do that.
Starfield has some remaining potential with PATCHES and DLC in mind, but as it stands now, I don't think it´s really worth my time.

In the end, I don't consider Starfield a bad game, but one that clearly falls short of expectations, all of which stem from Betheda's own marketing and the standards set by their previous games.
(Disclaimer: I did not follow any of the pre-release marketing and went in blind)

Bethesda's post-release patch policy and community interaction resemble more and more the case of FO76.
Instead, the game needs hand crafted content, and lots of it.

_______________

OVERALL: 75/100


CONCLUSION:

I'll finish BG3, play Cyberpunk again and by the time I'm finished, I'll likely have forgotten about Starfield...

It is their largest world by pure numbers, however it feels like their smallest.

Will TESVI be just as dull and underdeveloped...?!

This is just my five cents, mostly subjective disappointment with the game...

Properly engoodened. Relaxing. Meditative. There even are some story bits sprinkled on top of it.

The best shotgun outside of DOOM. And also other good things. And some not so good things, but I don´t mind those too much...

The DARK SOULS games never clicked with me for various reasons.
This game however is more accessible, looks very strange and beautiful at the same time, promotes exploration and has lots of environments, enemies, NPCs, mechanics and items that are definitely worth a look.
For someone who is not really familiar with the DS games, there are lots of "unexpected" moments and the story is quite mysterious / hard to piece together...

It´s certainly no bad game and I was very much invested up until the stupid race. That´s when it fell apart for me, because I don´t enjoy wasting my time with unnecessarily difficult challenges that impede story progress in games like this.
As Silvio would say: Stupid ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ game!

Gets really good after a while