Topic: Official Push Square Xbox Thread

@colonelkilgore I disagree - you expect Devs/Publishers etc to 'defend' their work - just like Directors/Actors, Musicians or Artists may defend their work too. I could be very critical of games like BG3 and argue that 'Turn Based Combat' is a game breaking design choice for me and they could turn round and I would expect them to 'defend' that decision - even if I don't agree.

You see it a lot in the industry - either devs/publishers 'responding' to criticisms or spinning things around to 'justify' their decisions. Whether its coming out and saying people are 'wrong' to criticise their sequel because Player Engagement is the highest they have seen, or that it was 'designed' that way on purpose for 'reasons' so you must be wrong to think it was a mistake. I would be much more surprised if they came out and didn't defend themselves. The only time they don't is often when the game isn't as polished as expected and they can't exactly 'spin' why a game is buggy or not running as smoothly as expected - but then its apologies and promises of patches, but the 'design' of a game is often defended - like the 'emptiness' of Space in Starfield, the choice to kill off 'characters' or whatever other things they decided to do. If Guerilla make a Horizon MMO GaaS and people say they should have stuck to keeping it a Single Player, I'd expect them to come out and defend their decision to make the game the way it is...

Consumers should expect a product to 'work' if they spent their money on it. That means as bug free and as stable as possible. The 'content' is subjective and its up to the consumer to do due research to know if that 'content' is for them. Its like buying an Album without hearing a single song or at most, just the Single, and then finding out the rest of the Album isn't really to their taste/preference. You could have researched more and got a better idea of whether that Album was for 'you' or not...

I wouldn't buy Marvels Midnight Sons because I really hate Turn Based Combat and can say they were 'wrong' to use that design choice because I dislike it. Had I not researched properly, then I would be out of pocket on a Game clearly not 'designed' to suit me - but that won't change the game or suddenly see them patch in Real Time Combat just so it appeals more to me and/or maybe would have helped Sell more too. I would expect the Devs to defend their decision to make their game the way they wanted, the vision they had for it etc - or for people to accept that NOT EVERY GAME is BUILT for them and vote with their wallets/in-game actions instead of complaining about something that is not even 'required' to do. You don't have to visit empty barren planets/moons, so don't go to them if that 'bores' you. Having the option was a 'design' choice and as a player, you have a choice to visit or not. There will be some who want to claim they visited EVERY planet, did everything a game has to offer, including seeing every possible ending, every collectable, every trophy etc, and others may just play through the main campaign once only, never doing any side content or going off the beaten path...

@BAMozzy well you’re perfectly entitled to your opinion… you see what I did there 😉 (probably not actually given your propensity for missing points 🤣).

@BAMozzy you might enjoy the first section of Skill Up’s latest video… well I say enjoy, vehemently disagree with might be more accurate I’d imagine:

@colonelkilgore @BAMozzy Remember when Apple bought out the iPhone 4 and people complained that you could knock a few bars off of the signal strength depending on how you held it? Rather than come out and confirm there was a problem with the design Apple suggested their users were just holding it wrong. This is that moment for Bethesda. It's them telling people who've bought the game that it's meant to be like that and they've been playing it wrong all this time.

@render hey you’re preaching to the choir with me bud 🙏

@render I see it more like buying an iPhone and then complaining that it has Apps built in that you never wanted or would never use because they don't appeal to you. The point was that they designed the game that way on purpose, that a LOT of the planets wouldn't support life or have any real reason to visit - other than to say you did. Give players that 'NASA' experience of flying to the 'moon' despite 'nothing' to do there - but maybe you'll find resources or set up a base in your Starfield game.

Its like complaining about Gwent in the Witcher 3, saying its a boring 'card' game and ruins the game for them, despite the fact its 'optional'. You never have to visit those 'empty' worlds and they never promised ALL 1000+ planets would have 'life' or things to do, they just said you can visit IF YOU WANT!. Yes I find it tedious and boring too. Yes I would rather have 'reasons' to travel to any playable space - regardless of whether I can get their by just walking/driving or have to get in a ship and go there specifically to discover it was 'empty'. But I can't criticise them for choosing to have a LOT of empty planets - much like our own Solar system. Maybe it would be better to only have focussed on 'specific' play-spaces rather than open up a massive Galaxy with many 'empty' places, but that may not be part of their 'design' goals of giving players that 'NASA' approach of wanting to explore, just because its there, even knowing its empty and devoid of any life or harvestable resources.

I don't agree that devs shouldn't respond or try and justify their design choices. I don't necessarily agree with their choices at all and I have said I think the problem is more about the engine which makes even travelling to planets with activities etc more of a chore than a single open world design (like Fallout/ESO) offer - even if principally its the same 'design'. Numerous quests can take you all over a map and you'll stumble on stuff if you choose to travel on foot but as this is spread out across 'numerous' maps and having to jump back and forth is the big difference.

Going to a barren planet to find nothing there is no different than deciding to climb a mountain and finding nothing at the top - its an empty point on a Map that you can explore if you want, but no reason to...

@BAMozzy great straw man as per.

Btw I think you should change the part of you sig that reads “Why can’t life be more like gaming? Why can’t I restart from an earlier checkpoint?” to:

“Why can’t gaming be more like life? I want to go to the moon and there be nothing there?” 🤣

Is Starfield like No Man's Sky where empty planets would still have stuff to collect on them, or is there just... nothing to do there? Haven't played the game yet. I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with a naturalistic open world that's not stuffed to the gills with stuff to do, though, so long as some meaningful interactivity is present. tbh I enjoyed the lonely beauty of the worlds in games like Breath of the Wild and Shadow of the Colossus.

I think the bigger issue is that the game's apparent lack of inter-connectivity ruins a lot of the thrill and immersion of exploration.

@colonelkilgore If they had made it clear that life would exist or everything would be worth your while to go visit, that would be different - they had made it clear that they had created their 'universe' based on NASA data/exploration and with their 'future' vision of What if 'Mankind' and NASA had moved onto settling in this and exploring 'beyond' many centuries later - an element of 'Realism' so 'many' Planets like there are in our Solar System, won't support Life. Completely Barren except maybe some resources or some 'random merc camp/mining facility outpost thing' who may also have 'explored/settled' for resources too in 'reality' even if somewhat repetitive after a while...

It's there in its whole set-up and 'grounded' that way in some 'reality'. Cutting them out too would be 'odd' so leave them in and let AI based on actual data decide whether that planet would support life or not which doesn't 'equate' to many in real life solar systems and you don't have to visit ANY that aren't scripted to visit as part of a Quest/story or significant reason... They 'exist' because they have to exist in game by 'design' and as 'players', you have the 'freedom' to visit EVERY planet in every system in the game even if only 10% (around 100 or so!) have any reason to waste your time in visiting...

That is the game they 'built' by design because the 'story' and setting specifically calls for it. The fact you can 'stray' outside to all those other planets, maybe discover some life on a few (if that planet could naturally support it) based on 'real' science, fitting the 'setting' is 'player choice'

People went to the moon, just because it's there and if you want to go to a planet too, even knowing it's barren like the moon, you can in Starfield by DESIGN.

Again, I don't fault them for that, its people not understanding what they built and even stated this prior to launch that its 1000+ planets are 'there, and you can visit, but many of them, like reality, are not life sustaining or particularly interesting to visit yet now people are complaining about that...

The 'barren' and/or some of the life sustaining planets off the 'main' section are meant to be that way and you maybe the first to visit or reason why no-one else chose to go there despite traveling across systems - but you can go there if you want by Design....

So no I don't fault the Devs on this one - if people are cross about that - which as I said is by design in keeping with the setting and story, then that's just ridiculous fanboy bashing and deserves to be pointed out. If you CHOOSE to go to a Barren planet, knowing its a barren planet, then who is at fault? Not the game designer, it had to be 'barren' by design to fit the whole premise of the game....

@BAMozzy We all understand it’s by design… which is essentially boredom by design. That’s like saying Redfall is rubbish by design, as when the devs approached Microsoft to tell them it should be cancelled due to its lack of quality, Microsoft saw what the game was and told them to carry on regardless. I suppose anything that is rubbish should be excused by this logic… which, actually explains a thing or two tbh.

The point that’s been raised is when players who spent money on the game have rated it poorly due to feeling bored, devs/publishers/platform-holders jump in to tell them they’re wrong. Surely these paying customers are entitled to their opinion. If you can’t see any issue with that… well just keep hammering your keyboard into submission I suppose.

@Ralizah there are resources for mining, spaces to build bases, set up cargo links and use the resources and money generated to undertake research for new weapons and armour mods, ship components and extra ships etc. It felt to me like fallout 4 base building in that people who love it go all in but for others, it can largely be ignored! I didnt really engage with those systems very much to be honest.

@R1spam Ah, base-building.

Ugh.

Thanks for answering.

@colonelkilgore have you played the game bud? I clocked 60 hrs in it and completed the main quest, a couple of faction quests and some side quests and have barely thought about it since! It certainly seems to have stuck with you more.

@R1spam no I haven’t… but I’m not debating the quality or lack there of of it. My point is… that seems to be missed by some people is, that paying customers are entitled to their opinions. Hence my original post on the matter:

That in no way is me critiquing that the moon is baron, that is me critiquing a company questioning the legitimacy of its market-audience views on the product. I honestly thought it was pretty obvious tbh… but obviously not. See my sig to reinforce this notion.

When a review outlet gives a hyped/liked game a bad review (ie stevivor with any PlayStation exclusive that isn’t Spider-man for instance)… if gamers challenge the review outlets view, they are shouted down by people decrying that they’re entitled to their opinion. Now Bethesda is actually approaching paying customers who have rated their game to be poor, to tell them they’re wrong… can you not see the hypocrisy?

@colonelkilgore replying to user reviews with AI-esque generated text is straight cringe, no doubt. I just couldn't muster so much energy about a game thar I've never played. I've played it and can't, It's too mid to deserve it 🤣! With regards to scores and system bias, to be honest the last few bigger reviews on this site have completely brought me round on whether there should be a score on a review. I've always thought reviews should have scores. Yet comments for reviews are a whole barrage of people who haven't yet played the game and can't have an opinion on the game, commenting about whether they think the score is right. I find myself pushed more and more away from it and towards video content (like your boy shill up) as at least I can see for myself what the game is like.

@Ralizah yep, that's how I felt!!

@R1spam I know it's not technically mandated, but the base-building stuff was a tedious waste of time in Fallout 4 and is a big part of why I bounced off that game so hard. Hate that they doubled down on it here.

@R1spam any energy you think I’ve expended is purely as a result of @BAMozzy’s wilful ignorance and continued straw man defence if you read the full conversation. Also, I’m not the one typing War and Peace with every post 🤣, so if we’re talking wasted energy… ‘maybe’ you’re tagging the wrong dude tbh! I just personally find the whole Game of the Generation-farce absolutely hilarious tbh and love a good laugh.

To your point about review scores, I generally like a review score to be given on the whole… it helps people who are pushed for time to gain an understanding of the games quality, albeit a less informed perspective than if you had actually read the review in full. I get you though, review scores seem to be so scatter-shot these days that it kinda renders them useless.

I feel like the internet is having a moment with regard to Starfield, like it does en masse with other games.

Microsoft should commission a Starfield anime series by Studio Trigger and patch it a bit so that public opinion can magically turn around and retcon the numerous complaints at the time that had nothing to do with bugs or console performance.

@Ralizah it’s pretty obvious this ‘moment’ is mostly down to the game of the generation/messianic rhetoric that was trotted out on masse by most hardcore Xbox-ers prior to its launch. If it wasn’t built up to be something that pretty much no game could actually be… it wouldn’t be as hilarious as it now is. This ain’t triggered… this is just most of the gaming community (who ain’t x-bots) in constant fits of hysterical laughter with each new news cycle 🤣.