I've heard people take that approach with Starfield and still be very disappointed. If it's space you want and are ok with creating your own story, Elite Dangerous is getting a pretty big revival

[–] pyre@lemmy.world 8 points 2 days ago

the difference is cyberpunk has good direction and writing. starfield's got neither. the problem with cyberpunk wasn't the core of the game, it was bugs. once they fixed most of those the actual direction and story of the game had a chance to shine through.

starfield's problem is the exact opposite. it was praised for being less buggy than the average BGS game, which is faint praise, but the problem is that it's badly designed from the very core. it has bad writing, terrible characters, no direction at all, and no vision. bland, boring and basic. there's no amount of updates that can fix that. the problems aren't technical. there's just no talent there.

[–] HalfSalesman@lemm.ee 4 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Its mostly just that I want a Morrowind/Oblivion/Skyrim with a sci-fi setting. A solid story, lots of side-quests, and a dynamic world that reacts to the player. I'd probably enjoy a modern metropolitan criminal setting as well for an RPG like GTA's settings but Elder-Scrolls/3D-Fallout gameplay but you never see that at all.

Space is cool though.

[–] Ashtear@lemm.ee 5 points 2 days ago

I don't think it's a super common opinion, but I really liked Starfield's main story. That said, it completely fails on the dynamic world front. You might be better off with Cyberpunk for now.

[–] Galle_@lemmy.world 0 points 2 days ago (2 children)

I don't believe you. That game exists, it's called Starfield, and it failed specifically because of its sci-fi setting and for no other reason.

[–] pyre@lemmy.world 1 points 8 hours ago

fucking lol.

terrible game design
zero game direction
nonsensical script
not even 2 dimensional characters
incredibly unlikeable companions
bad dialog
fallout 4 style fake choices and railroading, only one way to complete most quests,
open world" that requires fast travel, completely undercutting exploration
immersion breaking loading screens for literally everything, even following cutscenes which aren't used for bg loading for some reason
spaceship fantasy that barely makes use of the spaceship, it's just a toy you can decorate but can't properly pilot, space combat is horrendously bad even though other games nailed it in the fucking 90s
planet exploration fantasy that breaks planets into tiny chunks even though no man's sky existed for years
open world fantasy where discovery is undercut by the fact that the same assets are reused over and over. like not even texture and models randomized to have some variation, but entire buildings copied including the placement of objects inside.
classic Bethesda style afraid to lock the player out of anything approach that means you have no choices to make, just get through everything in the order you like ... be a cop and a thief and a merchant and a cultist and a garbage man why not
vast space fantasy with a gazillion planets yet you are the center of everything
scifi universe that doesn't have means of long distance communication for some reason, needing you to go back and forth between planets just to relay messages

i can go on but got bored.

the fact that you claim that the only problem starfield had was it's scifi setting when massively successful scifi games like cyberpunk, deus ex, half life, nier, mass effect etc exist just proves you know nothing about video games.

and more specifically your seem to have no idea what people want from rpgs if you even consider starfield to be one worth mentioning, let alone an exemplary one.

[–] Mr_Dr_Oink@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago

It failed because it was boring.

It famously had people saying "once you get past the first 12 hours, it gets good" it had nothing to do with the setting. The sci-fi setting was literally what drew people to play it in the first place....