DarkMetatron

Starfield is a game about a humanity in the early stages of interstellar travel and colonization, a game without living alien civilizationals. A hard science fiction game with deep roots in realistic science (with the exception of the grav drive and the temples/powers/unity).

It would be utterly unrealistic and unimmersive to have all planets full of interesting landmarks, structures or the like. Sure it could host relics/remains of other civilisations or stuff like that, but that would change the game on a fundamental level and would break the story of the game.

I love that space and most planets are utterly boring in Starfield, because that is the truth about space, it is huge, boring and mostly dead.

But I can understand everyone who thinks that this makes Starfield a boring game, there are lots of games out there that I think are boring (GTA 5 for example) which are loved by huge crowds of people.

Yeah, I like Minecraft 🤣

I don't see settlement building as a core part of Starfield, I am 160h in (NG+3) and have not touched settlement building at all. It is a feature of the game, but it is completely optional.

That sounds more like a issue with your proton configuration then a fault of the game.

Have you tried to change the proton configuration, to force it to use the discrete GPU?

Nvidia GPUs are known to be problematic in Linux, not only with Wine/Proton

Yes, I can grasp what you mean.

It is a role-playing on a different level, and with that it has its own merits and shortcomings.

Baldurs Gate 3 is a role play on a lower, more character centric, level which limits the freedom of the player but allows for the game to have a tighter, more interconnected storytelling.

Starfield is a role play on a higher, more player centric, level which allows for way more personal freedom of the player at the costs of having a story with pieces flying loose through the air, so to speak.

The venn diagram of people who like both of those types will most likely don't have a huge overlap.

Neither of those games are bad, they are just fundamentally different.

But that's more or less what they have done with the flyby animation shown when travelling inside of a system. You could interpret that as watching a rapidly speed up version of the, boring because space is a huge and empty void, travel.

Yes, but that still is like reading the same book but with a few pages changed. I am still only moving characters through a stage play, not roleplaying.

I can't have a completely changed or different way to play the game or be myself/anything in the world of the game.

Both games are great but they can't really be compared, not much more as you could compare a high budget musical with a high budget improv theatre play. Sure both are plays on a theatre stage (or RPG in case of the games) but beside that they don't have really much in common.

But maybe it is just to complicated for me to fully express or explain what I mean as I am not a native speaker and I am therefore limited in my words and formulations.

I have played it and I liked it. But after completing it with one character I have no intention of doing another play through anytime soon.

Yes you have different character choices but in the end it is always the same linear story. Yes, you could say the same about Starfield but it is not. In Starfield if I want I can ignore the main quest more or less completely and play a bounty hunter who only builds his base to have a place for his collection of coffee cups he takes from every place he goes.

In BG3 they give you predefined experience (now in Dark Urge flavour) which is great for telling a story but not so great for creating a world to really roleplay in.

Both games are fun for what they are, they are just not fun in the same way for everyone.

I have played and completed it, very recently, and I stand to my words. BG3 has a great story and it was fun to play once. But it is not a game I will play again, at least not for years. BG3 is like a good movie, impressive and great story telling but after I seen it once it is done and will go on the shelf.

That's where Starfield differs, in BG3 I command great written characters through adventures, in Starfield I play more or less an avatar of myself but on a Spaceship. And that is something I come back to again and again, just like I go back to Skyrim, Morrowind or Fallout for years now.

And Tolkien was not forced to hinder the Hobbits from inventing full automatic guns, but the Lord of the Rings would be completely different if he hadn't.

And the same is true for Starfield and other options of FTL. It would be a completely different game, with a completely different story.

Starfield is hard sci-fi at it's core, with the exception of the grav drive and the powers/unity, a near future setting that is in most parts plausible and possible, a realistic game set in a realistic universe.

Fast travel is the only sane way, without changing the lore and setting of the world, to travel from planet to planet inside of a system. Space is gigantic and even the distance between planets in a system are huge. Travel between planets, without having to wait real time hours or days to arrive, would need some kind of faster than light propulsion, but the only way to travel faster then light in the lore and world setting is with gravjumps.

The only thing I would change with the current space travel is using micro gravjumps animation between planets instead of the normal fly sequence shown when travelling inside of a system.