this post was submitted on 24 Nov 2025
1016 points (98.8% liked)

Gaming

6801 readers
283 users here now

!gaming is a community for gaming noobs through gaming aficionados. Unlike !games, we don’t take ourselves quite as serious. Shitposts and memes are welcome.

Our Rules:

1. Keep it civil.


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only.


2. No sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia or any other flavor of bigotry.


I should not need to explain this one.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Try not to repost anything posted within the past month.


Beyond that, go for it. Not everyone is on every site all the time.



Logo uses joystick by liftarn

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 15 points 2 months ago (2 children)

As a huge sci-fi fan, and fan of most of Bethesda's games in the past, I disagree. Turd rating is accurate. It just all felt like a waste of time. Like you said, the base building seems like it could be good, but it is never relevant. It's like this for almost every piece of content. They're just all on islands that don't interact.

My biggest issue though is the writing. It's so boring. It's like they watched a bunch of sci-fi and put tropes from them in the game, but then they never explore the consequences of them. They just exist for a quest and are gone. Why sci-fi is good is because it uses these stories to explore humanity, which would be made even better with an RPG where the player has agency. They just don't though. You get a few boring options that don't actually effect anything and everything goes on as normal. It's just a bland game that doesn't respect your time.

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 6 points 2 months ago

There's a Star Trek Voyager game out at the moment which is basically what Starfield should have been, but set in the Star Trek universe.

I think the big problem Starfield has is that it tries to be really big, but they don't really have that much content so it's just all spread out. While at the same time you don't actually get to feel that bigness because moving between locations is just a loading screen. You don't get the long quiet sections like you do in something like Elite Dangerous. So they made a really big, really spread out world, with fast travel, it's the most pointless game ever made.

[–] KuroiKaze@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Again you're describing a not excellent game but a turd, there are real turds out there but this is just a middling attempt which is particularly disappointing from a formerly excellent studio

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 6 points 2 months ago

You can disagree, but no, I feel it's a turd. I felt like best thing I can say about it was that it was a waste of time —and that's not a positive thing. I've played really bad games that I still feel respected my time more than Starfield, which in my opinion is one of the worst sins of video games. I'd put it up there with Ubisoft games for not respecting the player's time, but at least their gameplay is good (or used to be, but I haven't played one in a decade or more).