For those who have pre-ordered it is already here, the rest have to wait a little longer. Starfield is finally here! Have you bought it, why or why not? If you've already played it, what do you think of it? We are very curious!

Discuss all things Starfield below!

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] tal@kbin.social 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Music is great!

Thanks. I specifically meant to ask about this in this thread and forgot.

I liked the music in New Vegas a lot, liked Fallout 4. Fallout 76 was a disappointment music-wise -- I'm not a fan of country, and didn't think that the DJing was good, left the radio off. Was really hoping that the Starfield music would be good.

[–] DrPop@lemmy.one 13 points 1 year ago (3 children)

That's because Obsidian did new Vegas. Bethesda is good at making promises not games.

[–] tal@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago

I was fine with the music in Fallout 4, and Bethesda did that.

[–] AustralianSimon@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

Obsidian are great at story but also iffy at game Dev. NV was standard AAA bug fest.

[–] cmhe@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

That seems a bit unfair to Obsidian. They were given an engine, they where unfamiliar with and had a very short 18 months of development time, very likely because of their deal with Bethesda.

[–] Lols@lemm.ee 6 points 1 year ago

i mean it explicitly was the deal they made with bethesda, they both agreed to a deadline

the lack of focus on actual bug fixes and the overconfidence with how much content they could realistically finish in those 18 months was still absolutely on obsidian

They did not treat us badly at all - even the Metacritic thing was something they added, not threatened us with... and if we'd been better with fixing bugs, we could have hit the score needed to prevent layoffs, but nope - FNV when it was released had a LOT of bugs.

Unfortunately, the other interpretation made for a better story... but even Obsidian's CEO clarified it. That said, FNV needed to be downscoped, and production should have ended and testing begun at least 2 months earlier than it was.

Bethesda’s engine was the easiest to create content for, by far. Source control was easy, iterations were fast, the scripting language was pretty powerful – just easy to work in. Not necessarily easy to change, but if you wanted to do what we did on F:NV, which was make a bunch of new content and new features for the F3 engine, it was great.

[–] AustralianSimon@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

The other person made a good point but QA before release is important and lots of bugs were dead obvious in all the games.

[–] Lols@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago

this was more a result of them biting off more than they can chew than an actual lack of skill

obsidian seemed like it had a hard time letting go of grand plans even when they proved to be unworkable

[–] DrPop@lemmy.one 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Still love it, maybe because it feels like they cared about making a good game. I still load up NV on occasion.

[–] AustralianSimon@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

I do a play through of all the FO games every couple of years too.

[–] Rai@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 year ago

Fallout 76 was a disappointment

ehehe