• Joker@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    48
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    It’s a little boring, it seemed unfinished at launch, the performance wasn’t great, and the developers have since claimed that it’s the players who have it all wrong. There’s an interesting story in there somewhere but the game is flawed. When the developers are slow to acknowledge the issues and make updates, I think it causes a lot of players to be apathetic about the game.

    In contrast, CD Projekt and Hello Games knew their games were bad at launch and kicked things into gear almost immediately. No bullshit excuses and they kept pushing updates until the games were good. Both are pretty much a case study on how to recover from a bad launch.

    • Spuddlesv2@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      13
      ·
      6 months ago

      It took them literally years to make Cyberpunk anywhere near to properly finished and it still doesn’t have a lot of features they promised pre launch. Similarly with No Mans Sky.

      Starfield came out 3.5 months ago. It wasn’t great at launch but it was fucken light years better than Cyberpunk. Bethesda have released a coupe of small-ish bugfix updates and have announced plans to release new content from February. So far they’re no worse than the two examples you listed.

      • SquirtleHermit@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        I mean, Bethesda’s PR response has been much, much worse.

        Telling players “actually, the game isn’t boring”, is not just condescending, but also a dumb way to make sure the conversation about the game is about how boring it is.

        And Emilio going on a rant about how people “don’t know why the game is the way it is”, is not just condescending and unprofessional, but also makes it sound like he is soft admitting the general complaints about it being boring are true.

        Also, it doesn’t help that the game is kinda boring…

        • Spuddlesv2@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          6 months ago

          They didn’t meant it “isn’t boring” in the sense that apparently the entire anti-Starfield bandwagoners have taken it. The quote they’re referring to is this:

          “when the astronauts went to the moon, there was nothing there. They certainly weren’t bored”

          The point being, whether you agree with them or not, whether you think they succeeded or not, is that the emptiness and scale is supposed to make you feel small in the vast ocean of space.

          And an individual feeling butt hurt about negative reviews of the game they have worked on for many many years is hardly surprising. Unprofessional sure but again he wasn’t saying that people’s opinions were wrong, just that the armchair generals were out in force pretending they had any inkling as to what went on during the games development, how much effort went into certain aspects (eg the ever-popular “it isn’t optimized” claim by brainless dorks who just parrot what other brainless dorks have said).

          The game is fine. It’s not their best but it is not their worst either. It launched in way way way better shape than FO4, ESO and FO76 at launch. It is playable by most people on PC and consoles, unlike Cyberpunk at launch, and actually has a relatively complete story and endgame, unlike No Mans Sky at launch.

          I put in about 70 hours so far but moved on because there were so many other games I wanted to play. I will likely revisit it if they improve things in 2024.

          • SquirtleHermit@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            6 months ago

            Sure, I get the point about it wanting to make you feel small and what not. But it was still a dumb way to say it, PR speaking. Now all the headlines get to be “Bethesda says game isn’t boring”. That’s not a good way to steer the conversation about your recently released to mixed opinion game.

            And Emilio’s reaction, regardless of it was surprising, justified, or whatever, is clearly him talking about the games reaction. So saying that people dont know why “it is why it is”, it reads like he’s trying to distance the conversation from “how it is”, which again makes for terrible headlines and also sounds suspiciously like he is conceding that the negativity has merit.

            It’s cool you like it, you do you. But Bethesda’s PR game has been hot garbage.

            • Spuddlesv2@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              6 months ago

              I wouldn’t say I liked it but I certainly didn’t hate it. It was OK. I’m hopeful they’ll fix it.

              The PR has been fine. The reaction from people online, and the click bait headlines some gaming news sites have used, speaks more to their desire to shit on Bethesda because …. Well I don’t know, but I’d say it’s partly because Bethesda deserves a bit of shit, and partly because Microsoft own them and a good percentage of vocal gamers have a massive hate boner for MS.

              The fact that Cyberpunk is being compared to Starfield is utterly laughable. That game was in a league of its own at launch. It’s not even close.

      • Joker@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        Cyberpunk was really good by the time the 1.5 patch came out. I think it was about a year. No Man’s Sky took at least that long as well. It takes time.

        My point is neither one of them tried to defend their poor launches and they sure as hell didn’t say it was the players who just didn’t understand the game. They set to work trying to make it right.

        Cyberpunk is one of my favorite games. No Man’s Sky didn’t click for me, but I recognize that it’s a pretty polished game these days.

        I think the biggest issue with Starfield is the things they are saying in response to poor reviews and legitimate criticism. It’s not even just bugs. The thing that drove me crazy was the inventory management and menus. You spend so much time on those screens and they are clunky. Here’s a thing that a lot of players have a problem with and the developers defend it as something that works as designed. It’s the same thing with the boring, empty planets, although that one doesn’t bother me so much. The first Mass Effect game was the same way and it was still great.

        • Spuddlesv2@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          Cyberpunk 1.5 came out two years and two months after the game launched (yeah I didn’t realise it was that long either until I just looked it up).

          I disagree that Bethesda did the things you say they did but I understand your point.

          Agreed the inventory is ass. The mod to improve it made a world of difference. I assume Beth were trying to keep it simple but man it is just a turd.

          I don’t mind the empty planets but really wish they let you take off and land seamlessly like NMS. That really felt clunky.

          • Joker@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            6 months ago

            What’s the Starfield mod for inventory? I haven’t been playing or really keeping up with the game since launch. I put several hours in and it was interesting, but I figured I would wait until they put some polish into it. I had some stuff in my backlog anyway. If the inventory can be fixed then I’m mostly good to go.