Topic: Official Push Square Xbox Thread

@colonelkilgore I never got that sense. The tone of the rhetoric I noticed was people hoping and praying it WAS a big moment for Microsoft again after a string of bad releases and publicity prior to launch. Hopes peaked after a pretty good pre-release Direct that made the game look pretty cool.

Then again, I'm also not invested in console warrior nonsense ("X-bots;" c'mon lol).

@Ralizah x-bots-x-shmots, it doesn’t matter what term is used for people who post unrealistic rhetoric… whether you personally read/viewed it or not. As it goes, I was actually someone who while a predominantly PlayStation gamer was still interested in Starfield regardless of the pre-release hype beyond all hype… but the way it all played out just tickles my funny bone.

@Ralizah Mon 13th Nov 2023
Starfield was nearly totally snubbed lol. Won't get any actual awards, since there's not a ghost of a chance BG3 doesn't win best RPG…

Guess you found it at least a little funny too huh 😉

kilgore 3:16 dm me for t-shirts 😎

@colonelkilgore Don't get me wrong: there's a cruel b*tch inside of me that found the sequence of events leading up to Starfield being TOTALLY snubbed at TGA to be extremely funny. It just feels like one of those situations where the rhetoric around it can't be trusted for a while.

I was initially going to play it on Game Pass, but eh...

@Ralizah cruel b*tch to cruel b*tch then 🥂

@colonelkilgore lmao

It makes me want to do mean things with the name. I'm still fond of "Horizon Zero Awards" after HZD was mostly ignored in 2017 after being hyped up as a Zelda Killer.

Starfailed, maybe?

@Ralizah cruel-away… with the **** that is actually happening in the world today, a little spice spread here and there about video games is little more than a distraction from the horrors of the real anyway.

@colonelkilgore Insert well-that-escalated-quickly.gif here 😂

@render @AgentCooper 🍻 😆

Xbox Series X is $349.99 on Amazon right now.

@Ralizah Starfield is worth a go. It’s not my cup of tea really but it’s one of the most obviously subjective games I’ve played, there’s clearly an angle where I can understand people loving it even if it’s not for me. I’ve noticed a lot more people laughing at the game not doing great than ones defending it to be fair, that’s just the nature of online discourse. It’s one of those games that I just don’t think is possible to judge without giving it a go yourself, there’s moments of genuine immersion if you’re in the right mood.

@Ennui There’s a certain level of quality that can be judged from an outside perspective. Usually in the sense of it being rubbish like that Kong game and Gollum. I usually err on the side of believing that every game should be played to be judged but with the rise of YouTube playthroughs and all that, a whole generation of gamers grew up never actually playing their favourite games. Persona being a prime example because a section of the fandom had the Switch and were too young to have experienced the games the first time round and so resorted to port begging. Something like Starfield though, with it being played entirely at your own pace and a lot of the fun being the individual stories unique to your playthrough and the exploration you do, I’m not sure that can be quantified by watching streams.

@Ennui I'd argue that Expectation was astronomically unrealistic after the MS acquisition.

Its a 'Bethesda' game - the SAME devs etc that made Fallout 76 and Fallout 4 prior on the exact same Game engine. Neither of those were 'cutting' edge when they released and were an unfinished, unoptimised mess at launch.

Yet somehow, between Bethesda being 'over' and a 'joke' - releasing Skyrim on 'everything', all the bugs etc and then MS ownership, they are suddenly expected to release a game that EVERYONE loves and rushes out to buy, a game that truly shows off Graphically as well as play perfectly etc etc. It's a 'typical' Bethesda game - albeit not as bug ridden and better optimised as you'd likely have expected from a 'Bethesda' game on Consoles - for better or worse!

The difference is that their previous games were all on a single map - so if you went to a lake or mountain that was completely devoid of anything to do, you just keep walking exploring until you do 'bump' into something. It's a bit different to going to a 'map' specifically and finding it 'empty' - even though it says its not a life supporting planet or has any mission/quest/reason to go there.

Part of the issue, from my perspective, is that some missions/quests are always sending you to different planets so you are having to jump to one area, do something, jump to another area etc instead of 'organically' making your own way to a quest marker and discovering something en-route - it just feels more bitty and less cohesive - couple that with the dated design that they have used for over 20yrs built on aging engine that isn't all that immersive by modern standards, but very typical of Bethesda, and you have Starfield. In fairness, the Combat and movement do feel a big upgrade over Fallout, but it doesn't help that much when the rest feels dated because cut-scenes, interactions etc haven't really 'evolved'.

Now I may 'defend' Bethesda for the way they have those planets etc that are 'pointless' to visit, because they are totally in keeping with the Setting, Story etc. They 'exist' in that context and you as a player have the 'Freedom' to visit IF you choose. The 'reason' they may be 'barren' in this Game is because they would be barren, that no-one had reason to go and explore/settle/mine there - yet! It's really in keeping with the whole premise of the Game. It stems from NASA going to a Barren rock (Moon landing in 1969) and leading to the exploration of Space, settling on 'Some' planets etc - so I can't fault them for them including 'Barren' planets that you may 'choose' to go to, choose to mine for resources, set up a base or just say you visited. But if you don't want to, you never have to go because no Story mission or Quest will take you there...

If this had released under Zenimax, I don't think it would have the 'bashing' it has. I would expect comments like its Typical for Bethesda, when will they 'evolve'? Why are there so many Bugs/glitches? Why is it running at 20fps? The usual 'expectation' for a Bethesda new release. But as its First Party now, Expectations suddenly became significantly different, significantly higher and 'unrealistic'.

I'm definitely not saying its GotY material or that its a 'must' play - As I have always said its a Typical Bethesda game with 'fewer' bugs, better optimisation on Console (not 'perfect btw) than you'd have expected under Zenimax ownership. Combat feels 'better' too but a lot of it is extremely typical and common across ALL Bethesda games but instead of a 'single' Map, they have 1000's in effect and MOST probably are not that interesting to visit but you don't have to...

@BAMozzy That’s my main issue with Starfield, the structure is just inherently bitty. My favourite thing to do in the Elder Scrolls game is just wander, which you can’t really do in Starfield. A lot of the game is great, combat in zero gravity is very cool, but I couldn’t get over the fact that you do have to just spend time in loading screens and menus between every single area because of the nature of going between planets.

@Falcon94 It’s much harder to ruin an Elder Scrolls game, the issue is with just the nature of space and you can’t really get away from that unless there were only a few densely populated planets. I think Elder Scrolls VI will be just as good as it would have been if it was developed straight after Fallout 4, it’s hard to see a shift in mentality between that and Starfield.

Looks fkn perfect fair play!

@Falcon94 Its not really the amount of Planets, its the subject matter that means at some point, you'll have to leave one map to travel to a different map and that breaks up that ability to just keep walking and see what you find.

Its not necessarily the quantity, although it does sound daunting, its blown out of all proportion too online. It's no different from seeing a mountain in the distance and wanting to get to the top, even if its only there to look 'right' in context of the game setting. Just because you can see the moon (or moons/planets) from whatever planet you are on, you can literally jump in a ship and go there - That doesn't mean you should or have reason to, its because they exist and would in that game world, so you have that 'freedom' to go there too.

Maybe they only have about 5% of the Planets that they are Actually part of the game-play loop (missions/quests etc) - the rest are like our solar system - moons or planets too close/far from a sun to support life but may have 'resources' like minerals/metals/gases as you'd expect. Like they never expected people to go right to the edge of their maps to those mountains, especially as All the quests/missions don't go close to them at all, is the same reason the Moon exists - its not just set dressing so to speak, you have a ship, should be able to go there, so can go there. If nothing is there, its because nothing would be there, or should be there and the game doesn't guide or tell you to go there - yet somehow, that is a 'design' fault. A big 'mistake'.

The Mistake is building a game that's not open world and then making you have to jump between worlds to really get anything done. So many quests you pick up require you to 'jump' somewhere and some you'll start thinking they may finish in that one zone, then require some travel instead of 'wandering back across the map and maybe find something - in such a way that it feels 'bitty' and the 'engine itself doesn't help immerse you in enough to forgive the Ambition when a LOT feels copy/pasted from Previous Bethesda games.

Bethesda 'Fans' particularly PC side may well end up loving it and maybe some Mods will come to console too that make a 'difference' but right now its almost like you'd expect from the game had it been made for the 360/earlyXB1 but with more granular detail and more refinement in movement/controls. I'd say average - maybe above if you enjoy the setting, that 'freedom' to build your spaceship and explore all those Solar systems, and Bethesda games in general because it really is exactly what you'd expect Bethesda to make based on Fallout, the theme and their typical RPG template. Its also a bit 'deja vu' at times just a different skin...

Lol at the Steam community trolling Bethesda by voting for Game of the Generation to win the Most Innovative Gameplay of 2023 award. Not quite up there with Boaty McBoatface winning the vote to name the lead Polar Research ship but some top tier trolling all the same 🤣

@PixelDragon I remember saying about this time last year during a Doom Eternal gaming session that I thought Starfield would come to PS probably three years after the Xbox release. This was when it was a game of the generation game (some may consider it still to be).
Hopefully any XB games released are successful so we get ES6, of course I still hope for a PSVR2 update for Skyrim VR and the numerous other Bethesda PSVR1 games, and of course Fallout 4. Highly unlikely but hopefully XB/Bethesda can power our VR dreams.

All of this stuff does make me wonder what happened behind the screens with P Hines as I felt he was miffed about the loss of PS players...but that is just my opinion.