Starfield

I think the biggest problem is that they made a space game where you have a spaceship, and that is what I've heard called a "desperation genre". More accurately I think it is a genre that brings out unrealistic expectations and crazy fantasies. (Some) people see it and what they want is an entire universe, that you can free-roam like Elite Dangerous or No Man's Sky. But they don't want it full of empty, procedural, planets that are vast but full of nothing interesting and undifferentiated in meaningful ways. No, they want it to be like Star Wars or Star Trek where everywhere the ship goes there is something cool, interesting, and unique happening. That it's literally an entire fantasy universe just full of fun stuff to do.

Well that is not possible, at all, ever, and so disappointment happens when the game is released. It is either not open enough, or too empty, it is too big and boring, or too small and restrictive, etc. There is no being happy because they want something that you literally can't have. It would take resources beyond anything possible to try and develop that. Remember that the actual, real, world is the sum total of all of human efforts throughout history, and it is still full of plenty of boring shit, stuff repeated over and over, and people literally dream of a fast-travel system to get from where they are to the interesting stuff.

Any time a game like this comes out, particularly from a big developer, there's going to be lots of anger because people have an idea in their minds that cannot be realized and so they are disappointed in one way or another.
 
LittleBuddy said:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4WkTOancUk
Click to expand...

"The big problem with <game>"
"Why I stopped playing <game>"
"<game> is broken, did <developer> lie!?"

Fake-negative titled videos don't deserve the click IMO. By all means review material critical of the game, but it's a waste of your time giving oxygen to those videos that are only pretending. They're never insightful nor shine a light on anything previously unknown. //old man waving broom

tbt.gif
 
Last edited:
Sycraft said:
I think the biggest problem is that they made a space game where you have a spaceship, and that is what I've heard called a "desperation genre". More accurately I think it is a genre that brings out unrealistic expectations and crazy fantasies. (Some) people see it and what they want is an entire universe, that you can free-roam like Elite Dangerous or No Man's Sky. But they don't want it full of empty, procedural, planets that are vast but full of nothing interesting and undifferentiated in meaningful ways. No, they want it to be like Star Wars or Star Trek where everywhere the ship goes there is something cool, interesting, and unique happening. That it's literally an entire fantasy universe just full of fun stuff to do.

Well that is not possible, at all, ever, and so disappointment happens when the game is released. It is either not open enough, or too empty, it is too big and boring, or too small and restrictive, etc. There is no being happy because they want something that you literally can't have. It would take resources beyond anything possible to try and develop that. Remember that the actual, real, world is the sum total of all of human efforts throughout history, and it is still full of plenty of boring shit, stuff repeated over and over, and people literally dream of a fast-travel system to get from where they are to the interesting stuff.

Any time a game like this comes out, particularly from a big developer, there's going to be lots of anger because people have an idea in their minds that cannot be realized and so they are disappointed in one way or another.
Click to expand...
It's like when you're a kid and have all sorts of awesome ideas how a game would be even better, then grow up and realize how unrealistic or stupid your ideas were.

There are a large amount of vocal people that never reach that stage.
 
sharknice said:
It's like when you're a kid and have all sorts of awesome ideas how a game would be even better, then grow up and realize how unrealistic or stupid your ideas were.

There are a large amount of vocal people that never reach that stage.
Click to expand...
For sure. I was a HUUUUGE Star Trek TNG nerd as a kid and so of course I fantasized about that universe, and games for it. Not only would a game that was "like the show" be unrealistic to make... it would actually be unrealistic in that universe. If you go and assume that this universe would/could/is actually real you then have to realize that the show is the highlights. This is when something interesting DOES happen, when they go to a planet that does have something on it where something interesting happens. In actuality, even with FTL travel, 90%+ of their time would be spent on the ship, traveling, just doing the regular day-to-day operations of keeping the ship going. Even when they did find a system they were going to, it would usually be completely uninhabited and would just be the basic boring science scan and documentation before moving on to the next. It would be, well, like real life where there's a lot of doing the same shit over and over because it needs to be done and it isn't particularly fun or interesting.

Making a fun game really is a balance of trying to curate an interesting experience. There's different ways of doing that, but what it comes down to is making sure that players are doing engaging things most of the time and feel like it is fun. Also allocating your limited resources well because no matter how well funded you are, your resources are limited and you have to spend them wisely. Todd himself said it really well in a talk "We can do anything, we just can't do everything."
 
Last edited:
Sycraft said:
For sure. I was a HUUUUGE Star Trek TNG nerd as a kid and so of course I fantasized about that universe, and games for it. Not only would a game that was "like the show" be unrealistic to make... it would actually be unrealistic in that universe. If you go and assume that this universe would/could/is actually real you then have to realize that the show is the highlights. This is when something interesting DOES happen, when they go to a planet that does have something on it where something interesting happens. In actuality, even with FTL travel, 90%+ of their time would be spent on the ship, traveling, just doing the regular day-to-day operations of keeping the ship going. Even when they did find a system they were going to, it would usually be completely uninhabited and would just be the basic boring science scan and documentation before moving on to the next. It would be, well, like real life where there's a lot of doing the same shit over and over because it needs to be done and it isn't particularly fun or interesting.

Making a fun game really is a balance of trying to curate an interesting experience. There's different ways of doing that, but what it comes down to is making sure that players are doing engaging things most of the time and feel like it is fun. Also allocating your limited resources well because no matter how well funded you are, your resources are limited and you have to spend them wisely. Todd himself said it really well in a talk "We can do anything, we just can't do everything."
Click to expand...
Just want to say that I did find a huge star trek reference. No spoiling from me, but hardcore trekkies will know what im talking about
 
DF-1 said:
if you guys use persuasion to avoid combat, do you then fight them for the XP?

idk if i should or not.
(you can also pickpocket their weapons and make it real easy)
Click to expand...

As far as I am concerned, if they are unambiguous "bad guys" (like pirates) drop 'em. Don't even bother negotiating. They are going down :p
 
DPI said:
"The big problem with <game>"
"Why I stopped playing <game>"
"<game> is broken, did <developer> lie!?"

Fake-negative titled videos don't deserve the click IMO. By all means review material critical of the game, but it's a waste of your valuable time giving oxygen to those videos only pretending. They're never insightful nor shine a light on anything previously unknown. /old man waving broom

View attachment 595893
Click to expand...
Yes those people need to just stop creating content and fuck right off
 
All these mods and the game hasn’t even been officially released yet.

Glad I’m holding off for a while. By the time I finish Hogwarts there should be a ton of mods for it. Since it’s a single player game it’s not like I’ll be missing anything.
 
I should say this. I've been pretty critical towards this game, in large part because of the ratio between graphical fidelity and system load, which seems to be on the hilariously bad side, but I don't mean to suggest that it is bad.

Everything else about it is right up my alley. And compared to some other recent titles, the launch state is surprisingly good. I've only come across one hovering talking NPC thus far.

I remember playing Outer Worlds and wishing it was:

1.) Bigger; and
2.) More gritty, less goofy.

This game is all of that and more.

Question for those of you who are into it a bit. Have you been doing story quests first? There was a suggestion early on that recommended doing story before side quests. I wonder if that has turned out to be necessary. I normally am very tempted to go down every side quest rabbit hole as I come across them.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
I should say this. I've been pretty critical towards this game, in large part because of the ratio between graphical fidelity and system load, which seems to be on the hilariously bad side, but I don't mean to suggest that it is bad.

Everything else about it is right up my alley. And compared to some other recent titles, the launch state is surprisingly good. I've only come across one hovering talking NPC thus far.

I remember playing Outer Worlds and wishing it was:

1.) Bigger; and
2.) More gritty, less goofy.

This game is all of that and more.

Question for those of you who are into it a bit. Have you been doing story quests first? There was a suggestion early on that recommended doing story before side quests. I wonder if that has turned out to be necessary. I normally am very tempted to go down every side quest rabbit hole as I come across them.
Click to expand...
I've done a bit of both, I don't know how far I'm in the main quest but I was on a few and now it's funneled down to one. I got sidetracked in Akila and was just having fun. I don't know I feel like it not the destination but the journey so I'm in no rush to get through the main quest. If I see something that might be fun I'll go down the rabbit hole.

Edit to add I would at least do the first 4 main story missions.



Also maybe we'll get a Starfield New Vegas!
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Q-BZ
like this
Zarathustra[H] said:
I should say this. I've been pretty critical towards this game, in large part because of the ratio between graphical fidelity and system load, which seems to be on the hilariously bad side, but I don't mean to suggest that it is bad.

Everything else about it is right up my alley. And compared to some other recent titles, the launch state is surprisingly good. I've only come across one hovering talking NPC thus far.

I remember playing Outer Worlds and wishing it was:

1.) Bigger; and
2.) More gritty, less goofy.

This game is all of that and more.

Question for those of you who are into it a bit. Have you been doing story quests first? There was a suggestion early on that recommended doing story before side quests. I wonder if that has turned out to be necessary. I normally am very tempted to go down every side quest rabbit hole as I come across them.
Click to expand...
I play it like I play the rest of the Bethesda games - I do everything I come across in a geographic fashion and slowly move through using the main story quests to get me to the next major hub locations. The main story quests in most of the Bethesda games largely serve this function.

That being said, I spent most of today just setting up some different outposts. Not to mention just about every system has a number of 'dungeons' that all take a decent amount of time to clear out, all with their own backstory.

I'm at 30 hours at this point and easily see this being a 200 hour game for me, and unlike Cyberpunk it doesn't feel like a chore to play. (I have to constantly save scum in Cyberpunk due to numerous bugs and jank that can break missions.)

For me personally, this is my GOTY. It's just about everything I could have ever asked for out of a space game, and the unique IP is interesting as well.

Again, Bethesda really knocked this one out of the park, and the general Day 1 performance of the game, stability, and polished presentation is one of the best for any launch AAA title in the past number of years on PC.
 
Last edited:
Sycraft said:
Well that is not possible, at all, ever, and so disappointment happens when the game is released.
Click to expand...
...?
We're closer to that than ever, with current AI technology.

- Stable Diffusion can already generate images. With proper training, that becomes art assets, textures, etc.
- Chat GPT can already provide reasonable dialogue and context recognition.
- We've already had games that could provide a procedurally generated landscape. All they were missing is the context of "why" you were doing this. Which a language AI can provide.
- We have consumer GPU's that can leverage stable diffusion pretty well, and probably also do some language models. After all, you only need to generate a coherent scenario once at a time. It's not like the player can't wait for it to finish generating.

But yes, expecting such a thing from a space game from about a year ago and any further back was unrealistic.

I guess the elephant in the room is that human society has to change quite drastically for AI to not cause a dystopia. No, I'm not talking about the "AI is watching you and taking over" dystopia. I mean AI's interpolative power (which is what it's really doing, generation via interpolation) can put massive swaths of the population out of any reasonable work. All it needs is a few talented people to serve as "cornerstones" of a generative model (language, storytelling, art, etc). The rest starts becoming unnecessary. That might kind of hold such a game back, because the people making it aren't stupid; they know it's like putting themselves out of business... Well, that's another matter. Point is, what you're talking about might happen well within 5-10 years, if we can avoid a WW3... knock on wood.... all the wood.
 
StoleMyOwnCar said:
...?
We're closer to that than ever, with current AI technology.

- Stable Diffusion can already generate images. With proper training, that becomes art assets, textures, etc.
- Chat GPT can already provide reasonable dialogue and context recognition.
- We've already had games that could provide a procedurally generated landscape. All they were missing is the context of "why" you were doing this. Which a language AI can provide.
- We have consumer GPU's that can leverage stable diffusion pretty well, and probably also do some language models. After all, you only need to generate a coherent scenario once at a time. It's not like the player can't wait for it to finish generating.

But yes, expecting such a thing from a space game from about a year ago and any further back was unrealistic.

I guess the elephant in the room is that human society has to change quite drastically for AI to not cause a dystopia. No, I'm not talking about the "AI is watching you and taking over" dystopia. I mean AI's interpolative power (which is what it's really doing, generation via interpolation) can put massive swaths of the population out of any reasonable work. All it needs is a few talented people to serve as "cornerstones" of a generative model (language, storytelling, art, etc). The rest starts becoming unnecessary. That might kind of hold such a game back, because the people making it aren't stupid; they know it's like putting themselves out of business... Well, that's another matter. Point is, what you're talking about might happen well within 5-10 years, if we can avoid a WW3... knock on wood.... all the wood.
Click to expand...

No.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
Question for those of you who are into it a bit. Have you been doing story quests first? There was a suggestion early on that recommended doing story before side quests. I wonder if that has turned out to be necessary. I normally am very tempted to go down every side quest rabbit hole as I come across them.
Click to expand...
Ok I played a little further and you should at least get to, I believe, the 5th main story quest. That's all I'll say.
 
StoleMyOwnCar said:
I guess the elephant in the room is that human society has to change quite drastically for AI to not cause a dystopia. No, I'm not talking about the "AI is watching you and taking over" dystopia. I mean AI's interpolative power (which is what it's really doing, generation via interpolation) can put massive swaths of the population out of any reasonable work. All it needs is a few talented people to serve as "cornerstones" of a generative model (language, storytelling, art, etc). The rest starts becoming unnecessary. That might kind of hold such a game back, because the people making it aren't stupid; they know it's like putting themselves out of business... Well, that's another matter. Point is, what you're talking about might happen well within 5-10 years, if we can avoid a WW3... knock on wood.... all the wood.
Click to expand...
I mean... go ahead and develop that if you think the tech is there. I think what you'll discover is that you'd get an unusable mess at best. The problem with all the "AI" (I hate that term, they aren't, they are neural nets/LLMs) is that it is no idea what it is doing or why. That's why you get things like "hallucinations" and it being confidently incorrect. It doesn't understand context, or anything really. The chat ones could be most accurately called "next word prediction" they just predict what their model says the next word is most likely to be.

So try to put that in a game and what you get is just more procedurally generated mess. Text that makes no sense why it is there, pictures that are strange as fuck, etc. To get anything useful out of it, you have to have a human review it and work on it. You have to modify the prompts, retrain the model, implement controls, etc, etc, etc. You know... development work. Just trying to turn them loose and say "make a good game" isn't going to get you a damn bit of useful anything. Generative models are neat, but I think many people don't understand they have some serious limitations. The biggest being that they truly don't understand anything, including what they are doing.

I mean I suppose I can't rule out that in the future we will have true AI, and it'll just do everything, but based on the technology we have now including the generative stuff, no gamers can't have this infinite game universe they want.

Likewise, even if we DID have real AI... says who you'd be able to have it generate things fast enough to build an entire universe on demand? Stable diffusion takes like 4 seconds to generate a 512x512 image on a high end GPU. Consider that most textures are 1024x1024 up to 4096x4096 (sometimes even larger) and there are a lot of them in a single scene. How long will things take for more complex, more capable models? It may well be that we do develop something truly approaching human-level intelligence for AI... and it requires massive amounts of power to process at a human speed. So you could use it potentially for development, but it wouldn't be able to just crank out an infinite amount of shit in no time.
 
Sycraft said:
I mean... go ahead and develop that if you think the tech is there. I think what you'll discover is that you'd get an unusable mess at best. The problem with all the "AI" (I hate that term, they aren't, they are neural nets/LLMs) is that it is no idea what it is doing or why. That's why you get things like "hallucinations" and it being confidently incorrect. It doesn't understand context, or anything really. The chat ones could be most accurately called "next word prediction" they just predict what their model says the next word is most likely to be.

So try to put that in a game and what you get is just more procedurally generated mess. Text that makes no sense why it is there, pictures that are strange as fuck, etc. To get anything useful out of it, you have to have a human review it and work on it. You have to modify the prompts, retrain the model, implement controls, etc, etc, etc. You know... development work. Just trying to turn them loose and say "make a good game" isn't going to get you a damn bit of useful anything. Generative models are neat, but I think many people don't understand they have some serious limitations. The biggest being that they truly don't understand anything, including what they are doing.

I mean I suppose I can't rule out that in the future we will have true AI, and it'll just do everything, but based on the technology we have now including the generative stuff, no gamers can't have this infinite game universe they want.

Likewise, even if we DID have real AI... says who you'd be able to have it generate things fast enough to build an entire universe on demand? Stable diffusion takes like 4 seconds to generate a 512x512 image on a high end GPU. Consider that most textures are 1024x1024 up to 4096x4096 (sometimes even larger) and there are a lot of them in a single scene. How long will things take for more complex, more capable models? It may well be that we do develop something truly approaching human-level intelligence for AI... and it requires massive amounts of power to process at a human speed. So you could use it potentially for development, but it wouldn't be able to just crank out an infinite amount of shit in no time.
Click to expand...

Yeah I hate the term, too, it's not really "AI" in the traditional pop culture sense.

Anyway, I said, "within 5-10 years". It's mainly an issue of bounds and parameters. In Stable Diffusion or otherwise, an AI is only as good as the generative model it's fed. What you need is the right model that has the right boundaries for what you want to generate. Telling an AI to just "go make a game" is obviously not going to work, but feeding it the right mixture of assets, words, and word relations for the type of game (ie "Space Game, desert planet, legendary long lost technology, beam saber, etc"; all tags similar to what you would feed Stable Diffusion for an image generation) you want to make, and I think we could very reasonably have decent procedurally generated dialogue mixed with assets, quests, etc. I'm sure the first few games that attempt it might be messy as you say, but it can and likely will grow in scope quite drastically. An AI model can be very "baked" and only converge on a few specific scenarios, or it can be very noisy and diverge freely. The mess you're talking about is generally for very divergent AI. Bake too much, and I'm sure scenarios will start seeming very repetitive. Much tuning will have to be put in to balance it. I'm sure when Stable Diffusion started, it pumped out nothing but garbage. Now you can get photorealistic images of a celebrity in a ballerina outfit without any fuss if you wanted.

But you have a point, it will probably require a decent amount of manual tuning and training of the models, to produce coherency. So perhaps too many people won't lose their jobs, the jobs will just change a lot.

As far as the image generation speed, I'm not sure what you're talking about. It depends on the number of steps, but a 512x512 shouldn't take anywhere near 4 seconds, even on a 2080 RTX. Now, hires upscaling it to 1024 might take a 4090 about 3-4 seconds, but for the GPUs of 3-5+ years from now, I assume that's going to be cut well in half or less. AI tech is taking off.

Anyway, I'm not a game dev, and I sure as hell am not stepping into that hole any time soon, so these are just my speculations, as those are yours. I just think everyone is getting a bit blindsided by how fast AI is actually growing and what it has the power to do within <5 years. Or maybe they're just in denial. I don't know. If we have some people that work in the industry on it, feel free to chime in.
 
StoleMyOwnCar said:
Anyway, I'm not a game dev, and I sure as hell am not stepping into that hole any time soon, so these are just my speculations, as those are yours. I just think everyone is getting a bit blindsided by how fast AI is actually growing and what it has the power to do within <5 years. Or maybe they're just in denial. I don't know. If we have some people that work in the industry on it, feel free to chime in.
Click to expand...
I mean... people are surprised by what generative models are doing, but I also thing a big problem is that people see the neat text that ChatGPT produces and says "Wow this thing is really smart and can do anything!" They don't poke at it enough to start to realize the big limitations that are there, and the fact that it really is totally clueless about what it is doing. It sounds "smart" so they ascribe intelligence to it that you'd get with a human, but that isn't actually there. When you poke at it you can hit limitations quite quickly, that then need humans to get around.

Two examples I've gotten playing with it:

1) We were looking for words that started and ended with ch and were 6 letters, like church. Figured ChatGPT should find that easy, right? Wrong, it kept giving answers that were not 6 characters and didn't end in ch. Churro was one it tried that did hit the 6-character limit but completely wrong. Even with some prompting we couldn't get it to do it. For whatever reason, that is something the model wouldn't handle and it didn't know it couldn't handle it so it just gave garbage data.

2) My girlfriend was updating her resume and we were talking about how it was trained on data from the Internet and curious what all it had in it. Her name is out there, being a developer. So I asked it to write a short biography for her, just prompted with her name. It failed, writing a bio for a real estate agent instead. Not a huge failure, given that her name is not super common but you can find others online. So I told it to write a bio for her name, and gave it details about what her job was. It wrote a new bio... that was just a word swap of the old one. You could easily tell it was the same precise template, just using different buzzwords. It wasn't a new bio, it was just a "insert terms here" kind of thing.


I could go on, but the point isn't to harp on lots of failures, but just to point out the WAY that it fails shows clearly that it doesn't understand anything of what it is doing (and anyone who has developed one can tell you of course it doesn't) and just spits out shit. It is (usually) grammatically and syntactically, correct but that doesn't mean it is relevant, or accurate, or interesting, etc. You can sometimes get that out of it, particularly if you have a person who knows what they are after work with it, but it can't just generate you loads of useful content with no effort.

Also not that ChatGPT in particular needs a massive server in Azure to be able to run and generate it's output.
 
Sycraft said:
I mean... people are surprised by what generative models are doing, but I also thing a big problem is that people see the neat text that ChatGPT produces and says "Wow this thing is really smart and can do anything!" They don't poke at it enough to start to realize the big limitations that are there, and the fact that it really is totally clueless about what it is doing. It sounds "smart" so they ascribe intelligence to it that you'd get with a human, but that isn't actually there. When you poke at it you can hit limitations quite quickly, that then need humans to get around.

Two examples I've gotten playing with it:

1) We were looking for words that started and ended with ch and were 6 letters, like church. Figured ChatGPT should find that easy, right? Wrong, it kept giving answers that were not 6 characters and didn't end in ch. Churro was one it tried that did hit the 6-character limit but completely wrong. Even with some prompting we couldn't get it to do it. For whatever reason, that is something the model wouldn't handle and it didn't know it couldn't handle it so it just gave garbage data.

2) My girlfriend was updating her resume and we were talking about how it was trained on data from the Internet and curious what all it had in it. Her name is out there, being a developer. So I asked it to write a short biography for her, just prompted with her name. It failed, writing a bio for a real estate agent instead. Not a huge failure, given that her name is not super common but you can find others online. So I told it to write a bio for her name, and gave it details about what her job was. It wrote a new bio... that was just a word swap of the old one. You could easily tell it was the same precise template, just using different buzzwords. It wasn't a new bio, it was just a "insert terms here" kind of thing.


I could go on, but the point isn't to harp on lots of failures, but just to point out the WAY that it fails shows clearly that it doesn't understand anything of what it is doing (and anyone who has developed one can tell you of course it doesn't) and just spits out shit. It is (usually) grammatically and syntactically, correct but that doesn't mean it is relevant, or accurate, or interesting, etc. You can sometimes get that out of it, particularly if you have a person who knows what they are after work with it, but it can't just generate you loads of useful content with no effort.

Also not that ChatGPT in particular needs a massive server in Azure to be able to run and generate it's output.
Click to expand...

I see where the disconnect is. We're talking about two different standards for "success" in this case. ChatGPT is a highly generalist AI that needs to respond to basically anything that a human might throw into it textually, and draw out some coherent and hopefully relevant response... about that anything. That's a HUGE hurdle, narratively, and would be the next phase of what I'm talking about. I used ChatGPT as an example of simply how advanced the models have gotten. All I'm talking about for my idea is essentially generating a coherent and plausible flow of events, with some plausible narrative to back it up. That's not the same thing that ChatGPT is trying to do. It's more like "fill in the blank" as opposed to the "freeform essay response" that ChatGPT is trying accomplish. It's a much simpler problem. For that, all you really need is the writing of some competent authors (who would be given royalties for the usage) to feed their scripts into the large language model, and then you just need to tune the models to produce coherent sets of assets that correspond to the scenarios that are generated via their inputs. Obviously, I say "just", but it's not simple; that in itself will still take a lot of work. But what you're talking about in this response would be the next phase of an AI game, where it's basically completely freeform; ie the game has no "protected NPC's" and has to realistically respond to you killing the quest NPC and trying to keep the story going. That would be like it acting like a D&D DM in real time. That certainly is going to take a while, and would might actual, intelligent AI (though, note, AI DMs I believe already exist for D&D). The type of generation that I'm talking about doesn't take any actual intelligence. It's just generating a plausible scenarios from the Lego pieces fed into the system, much like Stable Diffusion already does for its image generation. It's just the image is a "set of events" in a game. The aim is to simply introduce "halfway compelling randomized scenarios with AI writing", not solve world hunger.

There are already AI that can generate (kind of dumb, but plausible...) full story scripts, with some tuning. The link I put in here was for giggles, but you have to consider this was possible over a year ago. Think about 5-10 years of advancement. We could actually have decent (wild, but decent) narratives backed up by completely generated textures and assets. I think it can become reality. Anyway we're kind of getting off topic though, I'm gonna just stop here.
 
TaintedSquirrel said:
I've gotten the same Abandoned Mining platform with bugs on it 3 times now within about 2 hours of gameplay.
Same layout, same enemy spawns.

Lazy, lazy.
Click to expand...
The exploration, while fun to me, leaves a lot to be desired. The caves are basically the same and I've already found a few special areas exactly the same. Also I can't find all the flora and fauna on planets but it says complete.
 
StoleMyOwnCar said:
There are already AI that can generate (kind of dumb, but plausible...) full story scripts, with some tuning. The link I put in here was for giggles, but you have to consider this was possible over a year ago. Think about 5-10 years of advancement. We could actually have decent (wild, but decent) narratives backed up by completely generated textures and assets. I think it can become reality. Anyway we're kind of getting off topic though, I'm gonna just stop here.
Click to expand...
You are right we did get off topic and ya, maybe in a decade it will happen (I am doubtful but I've been wrong before). However right now it can't happen, and it has for some angry nerds online :)
 
TaintedSquirrel said:
I've gotten the same Abandoned Mining platform with bugs on it 3 times now within about 2 hours of gameplay.
Same layout, same enemy spawns.

Lazy, lazy.
Click to expand...
Are you just going to random places? I've been on a chain of missions for one faction for the last 10 hours or so. I haven't gotten any repeated locations for it.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
You really think it is calculating AI actions for the entire universe in the background every scene you are in? Fuck, it has a load screen if you just enter certain buildings, so I highly doubt that. This game is as isolated, rendering and processing the area you are in, and nothing else, just like every title before it.
Click to expand...
You are so confident like you are actually privy to the internal workings of the game. I'm not. But I guarantee you it does not do empty cpu loops just to make you angry :D
Missions are tracked across the galaxy and they can and will update while you are in another system. Outposts also need to be actively tracked.
Did you know for example that when entering a conversation the NPC you are talking to is replaced by a higher detail version? I bet the answer is no. So how much else do you not know, yet confidently ramble about as if you did?

This seems like you can't find anything else to complain about, but for some reason you must complain about sg.
 
This one has been annoying me, switching weapons with perks causes the game to stutter.

https://steamcommunity.com/app/1716740/discussions/0/3824173464660998614/

nicely tested. Can confirm weapons with no perks cause 0 stuttering compared to the perked ones. I emptied my inventory to check if it was the cause but it appears to be the perked weapons 100%. Also shooting with said weapons will cause a micro freeze every time it hits the enemy.
Click to expand...
 
Loving this game so far. Only three hours in. It feels like Fallout to me, without Zombies, and I'm totally ok with that.
Thank goodness they gave us a mobile loot bank.

So weird seeing only 4.8GB of vram called when playing at 4K ultra/maxed.
 
This took me an hour and a half...
Not fun or interesting, just running around forever scanning objects.

Distance between POIs (for traits) needs to be reduced to about 200-300m, not 500+. Also finding duplicate trait POIs is a huge waste of time, you waste 5 minutes running to the location and get nothing.
Scan requirements for flora/fauna is also ridiculous, why do I have to scan the same animal 20 times? Should be once, maybe 2 or 3 times max.

This needs to be patched up asap. Mods or Bethesda.
A vehicle would help a lot.

starfield_survey.png
 
sharknice said:
It's like when you're a kid and have all sorts of awesome ideas how a game would be even better, then grow up and realize how unrealistic or stupid your ideas were.

There are a large amount of vocal people that never reach that stage.
Click to expand...
When I was a kid I had Starcraft, D2, counter strike, Team Fortress, FF6, all the 64 blockbusters, Super smash, and just never really had to deal with endless shitty games though?

Starfield might be the first bethesda game I actually enjoy so far. Fingers crossed
 
Last edited:
Somebody unified all the mouse sensitivities.
Just go through his INI and copy all the relevant settings to your's.

https://www.nexusmods.com/starfield/mods/656

Check the desc for the rest of the setup.

Code: 
[Controls]
fMouseHeadingXScale=0.0100
fMouseHeadingYScale=0.0100
fPitchSpeedRatio=1.0000
fIronSightsPitchSpeedRatio=1.0000
fIronSightsLookSpeedPitch=2.0000
fIronSightsLookSpeedYaw=2.0000
fLookSpeedPitch=1.0000
fLookSpeedYaw=1.0000
bDampenFirstPlayerControls=0
bDampenThirdPlayerControls=0

[Combat]
bAimAssistEnabled=0
bMagnetismEnabled=0

[Spaceship]
bSpaceshipAimAssistEnabled=0
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top