homepage Forums SimHQ Community Community Hall Starfield.

Being an Amateur Modder, I'll wait for the Mod Tools prior to me playing (Mod Tools are a fairly complete version of the Game Development Software). If I make my own mods, I feel less like a cheater

Worthy of note, a lot of Mods are already being made. So, probably, the "game will change substantially" over the next many months -- due to Bethesda and the Serious Modders who put Mods on-line.

The Steam forums are currently much better than the game. There's a huge battle between wokesters and anti-wokesters. Very entertaining. All because Nexusmods banned any mod attempting to remove pronouns from Starfield.

Just did a mission that had a zero G gunfight in a casino spaceship. That was pretty cool. Ammo is expensive and seems to be scarce, so that is good too. I am seeing some clipping that interferes with aiming behind cover, however. I think a GTA/ME style "snap to cover" mechanic would be appropriate in this game.
I understand why they populated the environments more than one would expect in real space, but wherever I land on a moon or planet there always seem to be several large installations within viewing distance. Occasionally I would like to see somplete desolation (if only to find a good spot to build an outpost).


That's what I am doing now. Went through some story missions to the point where I have built enough XP and inventory to go trekking. Only using the robot as a companion and tell him to "wait here" before the fighting starts.

Society truly has become obsessed with trifles.

Mmmmm. Trifles.

So, Starfield any good?

The closest games I can compare this to are Fallout 3 and New Vegas with space dogfighting like in Star Wars Squadrons. Aside from the story missions, you fast travel between planets where you have random encounters which may get repetitive. It does not excel as an RPG, shooter or open world adventure. Possibly the best way to enjoy it is to go along with the story until you have built up enough XP and credits to unlock what you're interested in. Craft your preferred suits/weapons and build your own space ship or outpost.and then watch how they work in the game. It does have a TON of customization options.

I'm about 12 hours in and have not come across any glaring bugs. Game runs smoothly on my 4 year old system without crashes. Any issues I have come across I put down as unfortunate game design: inconsistent key bindings that don't seem to make sense, menus and inventory system that require too many clicks, not having useful maps of game locations, etc. Basically: if are looking for frustration you will definitely find it in this game. But it can also offer a lot of fun if it is your kind of game.

Thanks for that informative post Johan. I'll wait until later this year to buy Starfield after it has been patched a few times. I'm still busy with Baldur's Gate 3 anyway.

Thanks Johan, appreciate you posting.

After looking at Can I run it, apparently my system falls short from my 6 core 3.5Ghz CPU or my Vid card. But after reading a few pages I'd probably just be bored with it, I already have RDR2 and I barely play it

Would you say it's due more to the setting of the game or the actual gameplay itself?

No it's beautiful, runs great I dunno I just can't stick with it I can get into the hunting and cowboy stuff, there's a lot to do but..

Ouch, this guy's not a fan.

https://youtu.be/dRDi6XHfcJ8?si=sCaNbJ9quVJE7ey4

My issue with RDR2 is basically the game forces you to use 3rd person view in order to win gunfights while relying on autoaim. If you try to first person the whole game, eventually you will lose to almost every bounty hunter encounter because they can kill you in 2 seconds flat, and there's no humanly way possible to take them out with manual aim using a mouse in the same timespan.

Some of us simply do not like 3rd person _at all_ when gunplay is involved.

I played through the entirety of RDR 2 plus the epilogue in first person in free aim. Dead eye is the key for the big shootouts.

Well, to be accurate, I was in third person when on horseback, but the rest was done in first person

I'm a massive Fallout fan, and I've played just about every Bethesda game that has come down the pike. I like space, and space themes and settings. Yet, I remain unconvinced by Starfield. I'll probably pick it up own the line like I do with most games.

As a former competitive first person shooter player, I never could figure out how deadeye works. The concept of letting the game do the shooting for me befuddles me. It never seemed to work properly in first person.

Dead Eye doesn't do the shooting, it slows time, like bullet time. Works great, I think. Like in the shootouts in the big set piece missions I could perforate a half dozen bad guys betwixt the eyes in what was probably two seconds of real time.

And it allows accurate aimed fire from horseback too. Those bounty hunters chasing you can be shot without much problem using dead eye.

Edit: To be fair, you can mark multiple enemies using dead eye and then it does indeed do the shooting, but I only used that in the tutorial for it in Valentine. After that I used dead eye a lot but always pulled the trigger myself.

Refunded. I understand this game was outsourced to a multitude of studios.

Hard to believe Bethesda had anything to do with it. Utter garbage.

That's pretty standard practice with AAA titles where development budgets often go over 100 million.

What was it about the gameplay and/or setting that made you get the refund?

It's certainly not garbage... there are thousands upon thousands loving it.