MSs real profit determination will be be once they see if it drove new GamePass subscriptions, and how long it maintains those new subscribers
It’s running the game from the cloud. The game is running on a server on the Internet, and then sharing video and sound back to your device. You send controls back to it from your device.
It lets me run games on an older Xbox that I can’t install and run natively. I can also play games on my PC’s web browser, my tablet, even my iPhone (though the screen is too small for that to work well).
Really, you just need any kind of Xbox controller (even a mini Bluetooth one connected to a tablet will work).
In theory, I don’t even need to own an Xbox console at all if I just wanted to play Game Pass games. Also, it isn’t storing anything locally, so you don’t have to use space for a game installation or saved games; it’s all stored on the server.
Note that there are drawbacks. There is a possibility of input and/or video lag if you don’t have a great internet connection. To the point that it can be impossible to play. When I was in Vegas, the connection in my hotel was so bad that most of the time I tried to play games the whole screen was scrambled and I couldn’t see anything.
Also, the video quality is never quite as good as it would be if you ran the game directly on a real Xbox.
But it works very well most of the time, it just feels like I’m playing any other game.
Well I bought it. Spaceship commands are fine on PC.
I died later in the “break into the scientific building” set piece on Preet and it set me back to the beginning, which made me turn it off. I guess I wasn’t used to the interface enough to notice a health problem. Also I am still using my mining laser - I found two guns but they don’t seem to have the same damage capability?
@Miller I have to agree; the narrative that gets you into the ship is appallingly lazy. It’s one of the worst scripts I’ve ever seen in a major video game. I can think, off the top of my head, of ten different ways to have done that better.
The game’s palette is dark and grey and colorless. So far, anyway.
It runs okay on my older machine, so that’s nice, and the map system is good. I like my robot friend, and the skill progression system looks solid.
The cutter does awful damage. And you can’t do much to upgrade them. It also has a range of 3; it’s practically a melee weapon.
That being said, I think it would be kind of fun to try to make your way through the game only ever using a cutter, and pretending you’re in Dead Space.
I would argue that is the definition of exceptional: it holds your attention.
There’s no one exceptional thing about this game, but it is better than the sum of its parts.
Better than Fallout 4? Fallout 3? Elder Scrolls IV?
I’m curious where this will land. I kind of think Skyrim was such a “generation defining” game, they will always be compared to that one. Even with its flaws, Skyrim landed at the right time and made a huge impact.
I’d say yes, yes, no from my personal opinion. But I would say not as good as Fallout: New Vegas.
Though I’m still not super far yet, it could get better or worse.
IE: exceptional
IIRC the mining laser does good damage but it is VERY short range (like 2-3 meters or something).
For those with Nvidia graphics cards that are new enough to use DLSS (mainly 30xx and 40xx but my 2080 can use some bits…no frame generation) here is a way to do it and it is pretty easy.
NOTE: Modding your game comes with certain risks. That’s on you if you try, not me:
Well, I tried. I wasn’t counting down the days to release or anything, but I was sufficiently interested in the game and since it was on GamePass I checked it out.
I’ll just say that I’m glad I didn’t buy it. Nothing about the game sucked me in and made me eager to find time to play some more. Meanwhile, plenty of things either frustrated me or made me wonder how in the hell devs thought they were a good idea. The opening story is bad; inexcusably bad. The menus are bad. The skill tree/progression system is highly questionable.
And for all the crowing about “no bugs!!!”, it took all the way until the first mini-mission for my robot sidekick to get himself stuck between me and a crate and vibrate at about 600 hz until I moved far enough away that it could get unstuck. Now, I’m not one of those who gives a crap about bugs unless they bork a save game or something, but going in thinking that it was (according to all accounts) practically bugless, that one really caught my attention.
I’ve seen the comments that say “Oh, give it 5-6-10-12 hours, and it’s great!” On the other hand, doing some poking around there are also plenty of folks who said that they stuck at it for 40 hours and wish they had given up earlier. Yeah, no thank you.
Basically it seems that most of the negative points being made are valid. The thing is, lots of games have issues at launch. But most of the time they are issues that can be fixed. The issues with Starfield can’t really be fixed; the issues “are” the game, really.
If that’s your thing, have at it and enjoy. If I find myself wanting a space RPG fix, I’ll load up Outer Worlds again. That game was awesome.
If you’re totally story-focused, that’s reasonable. But if exploration is your thing, then Outer Worlds offers almost nothing. It’s not quite on rails, but it’s also not far off. There’s nothing to do outside of the main story points.
Bethesda RPGs are at their best outside of the main story. Or even the side missions. If you don’t appreciate that, they aren’t for you.
Oh there are bugs, sure, but compare it to every other Bethesda release and it’s relatively pristine. The usual “development cycle” for their games is to put out a game and then let the fans mod out the worst bugs until a patch can eventually show up. Starfield is remarkable for not being like that.
But it’s definitely not perfect. I ran into some glitches too. Nothing game-breaking but annoying.
I don’t think anyone ever said there were no bugs. That is nearly impossible. They are comparing this to older Bethesda games which were notorious for being bug ridden at release. By comparison, this one is much better. “Normal” inasmuch as it has bugs but about what most expect when a big game like this releases. Vibrating robot is kinda minor in the scheme of things.
If you do not like it that’s fine. Not everyone will like every game. While this isn’t what I was hoping for it is a Bethesda game at heart and I have enjoyed most of them in the past and am enjoying this one.
YMMV. I’m glad you didn’t lose money on it.
I’m loving Starfield, been playing daily since last Tue. It definitely is not the ultimate space sim/RPG/open world game I hoped. It really isn’t much of a space sim or open world at all. There is no big overall map like Skyrim or Fallout where you can wander seamlessly. Space is broken up into warp jump cutscenes, and getting on/off planets is broken into landing/takeoff cutscenes.
But it feels like a space game, beautiful ships, space scenes, planet landscapes, and cities. And it has the typical Bethesda gameplay. Tons of quests, details, variety, people, stories, stuff, it would take a long time to discover it all. Many amusing, interesting, and unexpected moments.
Even though the space sim aspect is sub-par, I do like the ships, ship building, and space combat a lot. I’ve felt very motiviated to upgrade my piloting skills and get/build better ships. Just bought an Aegis only to discover that it had no research/crafting tables, but I was able to fix that fairly easily in the builder. In fact you can change the type of modules without removing and adding a new one, so you can change a hallway to a bunk to a workshop as long as they are the same sort of piece.
The skill system is pretty fun, I can see it will be a long time to unlock even half of everything and it’s always a struggle whether to specialize or diversify. I tend to diversify.
After reading/watching a lot about the performance I did buy a new video card, an Nvidia RTX 3060 12GB. That hurt, I’m used to spending $150 on a video card. That let Starfield run between 25-60 FPS on my system at med/high settings, depending on where I was. But I think the fluctuating frame rates made me feel queasy. So I locked the FPS to 30FPS using Nvidia Control Panel and it’s a much smoother experience now.
How big are the planet maps in terms of exploration potential? Similar to the Fallout 3 map in terms of size (i.e. large-ish)? Or more similar to the Outer Worlds planet maps (i.e. not very large)?
I believe each landable area is around 8000m on each side or around 25 square miles to Skyrim’s 65. Of course you can then land 1 tile over and so on all the way around the planet.
I’ve never reached the edge of a map and can’t really imagine wanting to.
But in terms of number of named locations or fast travel spots, is it more like 5 or 30?
Depends on where you land. So far I’ve mostly landed at a spot where I needed to go, IE there was a specific map location I was headed to. There would usually be a handful of other locations immediately visible as icons on my radar; when I’ve gone to check those out I’ve typically found other locations popping up as I move further.
30 seems like a lot but there’s probably at least a dozen per landing site?