I love that half of the planets are empty. I feel like Armstron and Aldrin playing golf.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't know what's most bizarre. A company trying to convince people that their product is great when all evidence points to the contrary, or the fact that there are actually websites reporting on said interactions like it's news or something.
We used to have websites reporting on Youtubers and social media accounts farting about. Now they go a step further and report on their reports.
In both cases, somebody gets paid not to do a job basically.
Comment has been collapsed.
Bethesda keep in touch with players - it's good. You are better try to write something bad in cd red discussion and you will be instantly banned.
Comment has been collapsed.
Is it though? I'd rather see them accept the valid criticisms (of which they are many for Starfield), and do the best they can with that. Either by improving the game through patches, or simply acknowledging the problems so that they don't ever do it again going forward.
Trying to convince people that what they did was right... that doesn't do anything really. It's at best a bad way to improve user scores, or at worst they actually believe it themselves and continues with their backwards design ideas in future games.
Comment has been collapsed.
This is global problem - Ubisoft, Activision, EA and more and more publishers have this problem. But internet newsmakers decided to bully only Bethesda.
Comment has been collapsed.
but you, the ppl still buy their games
cant live without them, right ?
Comment has been collapsed.
I didn't buy Starfield - I tested it on 5$ gamepass. This is a difficult question, I would like to see a game that surpasses games like GTA V, Skyrim and Witcher 3 but it's probably impossible.
Comment has been collapsed.
Sure, that's true. But I also think Bethesda is a little bit of a special case. Their games are broken out of the gate, pretty much all of them. Their tech is ancient by todays standards... and their post-launch support basically consists of the goodwill of modders.
There are companies that could refute their criticisms like Bethesda is doing here, absolutely. Games that are misunderstood or where the creators intent is missed. That's not the case with Starfield though. Even the people that like it, still throw the same complaints at it. The outdated engine, the tacked on space battles, the long stretches of absolutely nothing. No one likes these things, they are simply poor design decisions that the developers made. To then have them try to justify why they did these things? It doesn't work, just comes off as excuses. Especially since their previous games, like Fallout 76, released in an atrocious state too - and that's on us for buying it (me included).
But you're absolutely right that the same thing could be said about a lot of other companies, but this is probably one of the worst examples of it.
Comment has been collapsed.
Weird. Too much effort from Beteshda. With Fallout 76 they were just deleting negative ones.
Comment has been collapsed.
oh no, bethesda was really invested on player feedback during fallout 76. Just message them about specialized builds or legitimate ways to facilitate grind. And they will balance and fix it asap
Comment has been collapsed.
https://gamerant.com/fallout-76-bans-player-for-having-too-much-ammo/
I've read more stories about them banning people without even being able check if they cheated.
Comment has been collapsed.
within the groups i was in, i never seen anyone get banned. But im 100% sure these bigger groups had moles that would report back to bethesda on any exploit they came across.
there were also Scoreboard exploits, base building exploits, mule accounts, glass cannon builds, ways to spawn both raid bosses at the same time and a way to speed run nuke launch through out of bounds glitch
game was broken, but better then than now
Comment has been collapsed.
Bethesda has been ignorant towards Eastern-European customers for nearly a decade now.
No Bethesda game from my part ever since - not that it was a tough decision, they haven't made anything worthwhile anyway.
Comment has been collapsed.
We appreciate you taking the time to provide your review and sorry to hear that you did not enjoy your time in Starfield. If you feel that things are getting boring, there is so much more to do than just the main mission!
There are so many layers to Starfield, that you will find things you’ve never knew were possible after playing for hundreds of hours. Even after completing the Main Story, your adventure doesn’t end! You can continue onto New Game+ to keep exploring Starfield and all that is out there!
Just play it for another 200 hours and it will get good.
Comment has been collapsed.
“We are sorry that you do not like landing on different planets and are finding many of them empty. Some of Starfield’s planets are meant to be empty by design - but that's not boring.”
Replace "planets" by "dungeons" and "boring" by "new" and it works with every Bethesda game since Oblivion :x
Comment has been collapsed.
The product requires engagement. The product is good. You will like the product. The product is forever.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yea, and then you found this.. that kills your progress:
Comment has been collapsed.
I got clued in by another person's post. It seems to be a generic policy that probably started in October 2023. We're only noticing because Starfield gets (mostly deserved) criticism.
But I found traces of it also happening in their other games.
It is, however, inconsistent. I see no evidence of it happening in Fallout 4 or Skyrim, which would lead me to believe the older non-live service games are excluded, yet Redfall doesn't get this damage control. But then again, maybe even they knew Redfall was a lost cause.
EDIT: After further thought, the answer may be Microtransactions. I haven't played most of these games, but if I recall, Redfall didn't end up with microtransactions nor did Hi-Fi Rush. However, Doom Eternal did. So there's the financial incentive to try and change minds on the off chance someone goes to spend.
Starfield doesn't have a microtransaction shop but it is their newest game and has confirmed DLC coming, so that's why it'd fit in with the other live service games that get these CS responses.
And I was definitely wrong about the October start for CS responses. In scrolling Fallout 76, I saw them going back to June 2023.
I did also end up finding out that there were responses to Redfall. But they stopped in August 2023, so I still think the microtransaction/dlc argument has merit. That's just the point they gave up.
Comment has been collapsed.
The problem will probably be solved if Bethesda distributes free computers that run optimally to the people of the earth.
They are being treated like scantily clad sponges for having provided 🧽 to an environment where computers that operate optimally do not exist.
There is an aspect of the Skyrim era that was also enjoyed by the support of the community of user created mods that people supported. I have the impression that this time around this game is being exposed to the cold winds of not hearing about those topics.
These long sentences are "Damn, humanity is not providing me with a good computer!💻🔨" 😁😭
Comment has been collapsed.
Game really looks bad for how much tech requirements it needs
Comment has been collapsed.
steams been letting devs nuke legit reviews for ages to boost scores/sales.
had to file report on at least 8 of mine that were removed to get them returned.
Comment has been collapsed.
Uh, I actually think that these replies aren't bad at all. They aren't condescending, heck most of them are extremely polite or even thankful for the feedback. And they offer specific context to expressed criticism. Is every reply perfect? Nope, but that's to be expected with human interaction.
Way better reaction than ignoring, deleting, banning or whatever else other companies do. I actually respect them for this approach and I have no idea why anyone would mind this.
Comment has been collapsed.
I think the issue is not how polite the responses are, but the complete lack of self awareness in them. If everything was fine, large swathes of game adopters wouldn't be citing the same issues, and while polite, it's still an FU to the people pointing out the game's issues.
Now, I knew it would be something of a train wreck, so I didn't buy it, but I find the way Bethesda is handling criticism to be both interesting and an affirmation that my money was better spent elsewhere.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't agree with the "lack of self awareness".
If someone complains about empty planets, there is no lack of self awareness when they explain that empty planets aren't the result of them being lazy, the game being incomplete or whatever else someone might imagine reading such a criticism.
It was an intentional design decision as space is actually mostly empty and they wanted players to experience that. It's just fair for them to share such additional thoughts and information that usually is missing in user reviews.
Must people consider Starfield epic because of such information? Of course not. It's absolutely reasonable to still consider empty planets a weakness. But it doesn't hurt anyone if they can read why devs made such decisions.
Comment has been collapsed.
While I don't disagree that a dev is able to state their case, I do not see that being helpful. If a concept wasn't successful, it wasn't successful. This is just me, but if I was Bethesda, I'd probably spend less time defending design choices people don't enjoy, and more time asking the player base how they can improve moving forward. That's the self awareness part.
Although honestly, I'm not saying you're wrong in how you see things. I just see it through a different lens.
Comment has been collapsed.
It was an intentional design decision as space is actually mostly empty
That is true and explaining it this way is fair. Landing on a moon with just some hills and craters, maybe one or two resources to gather is realistic and even provides atmosphere. But it only does a few times. Creating so many moons and lifeless planets leads to the realistic layout of the galaxies, but it doesn't add much to the gameplay and experience. A few of those would have sufficed for atmosphere and resources could have used to further improve those worlds with life instead.
Furthermore, it's something Bethesda intentionally avoided to state prior and at release. They advertised the game by mentioning the 100 galaxies and 1000 planets/moons, but definitely not how much emptiness is there. Of course, that's how advertising works, but then you also don't have to be surprised about high expectations and bad reviews. I agree that those reactions by Bethesda are at least something and also polite. I wouldn't want to be one of those PR guys though, considering that these issues arose from poor design choices.
Comment has been collapsed.
the website wanted my cookies so i refreshed and hit that X to stop mid refresh and got past the screen. also works on anti adblock popups
Comment has been collapsed.
Bethesda games usually take a few years worth of patches and mods before they are in a good state. I thought everyone understood this, including Bethesda.
Comment has been collapsed.
Pretty much. But with starfield it was worse than usual, they promised open world and being able to actually fly to planets and land on them (instead of orbit and the planet itself being fast travel points like it actually is), meaningful exploration, and a host of other things that are either just plain not there or don't work like advertised. Most likely none of this will ever be fixed by bethesda and modders will have to do it for them as usual.
It's like going to a restaurant and ordering filet mignon but getting a plate of raw ground chuck instead.
Comment has been collapsed.
I enjoyed it for what it is, 240 hours on the clock, but so much wasted potential. Graphics not on today's AAA level, story just solid, too many loading screens, space combat too rare and barely strategic, bad inventory management. Ship builder is good, some very good faction and side quests, housing and decoration offers a lot for those interested in it, crafting and outpost building is okay.
But what they really failed at is the exploration, which is even worse, when the story is all about exploring. Of course you can't provide an endless amount of creatures and plants textures, so some repetition is inevitable. But No Man's Sky was more creative regarding designs, RDR2 had hundreds of animals and an in depth research (besides focus on a great story and online components). Starfield has water creatures, but you barely can view them, because you can't dive, probably because underwater landscape would look scarce, too. Since it doesn't offer any bestiary, you can't even see the underwater species in detail. Not enough variety for building layouts and natural sights, interesting random encounters only in big cities. Not having conscious aliens at all despite the huge galaxy speaks for their low effort design as well.
Still worth to buy it, because you easily have 100+ interesting hours of gameplay, Depending on your interest in the setting maybe on sale. But it's just sad when you consider what it could have been.
Comment has been collapsed.
I think for me personally, $20 or less is when I'll buy it. However long that takes. On the plys side, I think the mod scene will be pretty full throttle by then.
Comment has been collapsed.
Instead of complaining buyers should be grateful Starfield wasn't a complete train wreck at launch like Fallout '76. ;)
Comment has been collapsed.
I have no intent to play this game. Skyrim is great. Not sure a hate wagon is needed?
Comment has been collapsed.
I tried the cough "demo" and almost immediately felt so indifferent about it. I mean, you COULD class it as a "game" but nothing ever really happens in it, so meh.. I removed it from my wishlist.
Comment has been collapsed.
You can argue about the text and the actual answer. But I don't see the issue with a developer answering on Reviews. I play a lot of indie games where developers answers in forum and on reviews. I mean reviews have a specific field for the developer answer to be shown. This is a considered option from Steam.
So, it doesnt some overly unusual to me. Not sure why people and gaming media are blowing this out of propotion unless the answers themselves are kinda bogus. The process itself is not.
Comment has been collapsed.
It's not an indie. It's a "AAA" dev and they aren't just replying to criticisms, they are trying to defend something that is clearly deserving of that criticism.
Comment has been collapsed.
Worst thing about Starfield is it's absolutely killed my hype for TES6 - badly done procedurally generated environments, unambitous and halfbaked main quest, that awful fucking engine, all so utterly underwhelming for the time and hype they put into it - but as it's a new IP preceded by an alltime awful game in FO76 there's no history to live upto, just a sadness that Bethesda did a Bethesda.
However if they halfarse a return to Tamriel after the best part of two decades there'll be blood in the fucking streets.
Comment has been collapsed.
https://www.vg247.com/starfield-bethesda-responding-to-negative-steam-reviews
Bethesda Customer Service responding to negative reviews: "Game is great, you're boring, it just works."
Comment has been collapsed.