Topic: Official Push Square Xbox Thread

I feel I haven't heard anything about Starfield @nessisonett so what impressive systems do it have? I'm genuinely curious because it sounded just like more of the same old Bethesda gameplay just in space

@nessisonett I haven't been very impressed with it either after 20 hours of play. I find it incredibly boring, particularly the main quest. It's really missing the exploration element of a Fallout or Elder Scrolls game. You just fast travel from planet to planet, choosing the exact location you need every time to complete a quest. There's no reason for me to turn the objective marker off and wander off in the opposite direction, and that's really disappointing.

@AgentCooper @LiamCroft sums up my feelings almost perfectly. There’s not much room at all to just wander, and that’s what I loved doing in Skyrim especially, you can pick a direction and you’ll find all sorts. I understand that it has to be fundamentally different because space is naturally a collection of planets but it completely disrupts the flow of the game. You would spend more time in menus and fast travelling than playing the game if you decided to ignore objectives and go on a wander.

@HallowMoonshadow For starters, it has one of the most bafflingly impressive physics engines I’ve seen, especially if you come across a pile of items. It’s almost entirely useless as the gameplay doesn’t depend on it in any way, just how high you jump on each planet is about it. The scale is also mad, feels a lot like if Mass Effect had allowed you to land on every planet but again, it’s a double-edged sword as there just isn’t much of a reason to land on most planets. Outpost building and ship building are as good as I’ve seen those systems in any game, ships especially are exactly what you would want from that, being able to create anything from a hot dog to the Millennium Falcon. Like I said, it’s a total Jack of all trades, there’s loads right with it, but it’s built on very very shaky foundations and just some fundamental flaws with pacing that can’t be overcome in any way through updates or DLC.

Interesting. An vastly under-used physics engine and building stuff... Thanks for that @nessisonett!

The lack of exploration is kinda weird for a game all about space and "hundreds" od explorable planets.

... Though considering I've never really found Bethesda's worlds to be that interesting to explore (Especially Skyrim's) I dunno whether I'd consider that a good or bad thing myself

@HallowMoonshadow Yeah, it’s the classic problem of scale over substance. Skyrim’s up there for my favourite games of all time because I can lose myself in a cohesive world where there’s both loads to explore and also a setting that you can learn as it’s a map that I’ve basically committed to memory. There’s no way you could do that with Starfield outside of planets that are involved in the story, because of the procedural generation.

There are moments of stumbling across cool things, like when you jump into a system and it triggers a cool quest like exploring a vault-like ship or exploring a space station filled with pirates where the gravity has malfunctioned. However, in my play through they have been few and far between. Whenever I've landed away from major settlements on a planet, I've not found anything interesting and have actually given up on that. I never really engaged with radiant quests in fallout 4 and that's what these feel like. They are almost mmo like and not my vibe. Starfield is a game that is much more about questing than exploration. The structure feels closer to mass effect andromeda than it does fallout. At this stage, I've veered completely off the main quest and am enjoying a couple of the faction questlines a good bit. The crimson fleet in particular has been good. Having said that, it's very much a Bethesda game, if you didn't like skyrim or fallout 4, I can't see you liking this.

@AgentCooper I thought AC1 was pants when I played it on the PS3 and I didn't get very far before it went off to fleabay. Not knowing what happened didn't stop me enjoying AC2 which was a vastly improved sequel.

@AgentCooper The first one’s odd but has great atmosphere. II is the better game in practically every way.

@nessisonett Apart from those damn feathers! 😆

@JohnnyShoulder I chased the platinum for a wee bit, only have about 10 feathers left to get to 100% the game but the lack of markers on the map for collected feathers makes it almost impossible to even follow a guide to get the last few.

@AgentCooper The first Assassin’s Creed, if nothing else, absolutely does not feel as old as it is. There are a few things that I think still feel futuristic to this day, the original Assassin’s Creed’s blue tinted city and empty Animus void, Kylie’s Can’t Get You Out Of My Head, the Dreamcast’s entire aesthetic.

The feathers and cloaks associated are the ONLY achievements I gave up on. After beating the game, I couldn't be bothered to try and locate every feather just to get the last few achievements.

AC2 was, and I think still is my favourite of the Franchise. AC1 was good - but they really improved 'everything' with the Second.

Although I tend to be somewhat loyal to certain brands Iam somewhat glad to own a Series X now (have not used it much to date). I feel like it was a good buy…

@colonelkilgore I was going to post this vid earlier but didn't know where would be good but it looks like here is as good as anywhere.
Pretty funny and good editing, scary how well it is done tbh (I'm going to assume that it wasn't the real Todd actually being honest, for a change )

@CaptD 16x the loading screens 🤣

@colonelkilgore Are you getting closer to buy an Xbox soon or are you too busy with your PlayStation backlog still?

I'm just glad it's all over...

@KilloWertz Yeah! It certainly dragged on and on and on to its inevitable conclusion - like or hate it...

I just hope they get those Studios working on making their OWN games - whether its from MS's growing list of IP's (inc all those ABK IP's) or something brand new they have wanted to make but never got the chance as they had to focus on CoD. It doesn't make sense to keep the 'same' set-up after spending so much for so little output long term in my opinion.

Toy's for Bob making a Banjo game for example or maybe Sledgehammer makes a new Prototype or even create something completely new - the type of game they were making before being dragged into CoD. 1 Studio for CoD - maybe with a longer gap between each or a 'new' structure.

But whatever happens, It will be a while before anything really noticeable impacts the Consumer. None of the Studios seem to have plans beyond the next CoD (and maybe even early stages of the one after that too...) because Activision would have expected that under their management. Blizzard has OW2 and just released D4 so I doubt they are working on 'new' games and King does what King does so won't have 'Xbox' plans. So certain things will likely carry on in motion as transition and conversations need to take place and in the mean time, they have a Back Catalogue they can 'resurrect' via BC and/or Game Pass until these Studios can become 'productive' for new content - whether it ALSO comes to other Platforms (inc Playstation) or not. If Toys for Bob made a Banjo Game, would PS fans 'expect' MS to release on PS because its an Activision Studio or what about the Coalition making a Hexen or Prototype game - an Xbox Studio but were ABK IP's?

So whilst the 'Saga' is over in terms of getting the deal done, no doubt it will still rumble on for years in some capacity or another...