• abraxas@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    The difference is that the actual stated end goal of the game is to go NG+.

    I mean, it’s “Discover the secrets of the artifacts”. The main plot is never the goal of a Bethesda game.

    and making it the point of the game shattered it completely.

    Since when? You can say you don’t like it, but it certainly technically worked.

    • wildginger@lemmy.myserv.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Not a great sign if your advice for the game is to not play the main game, tho, no?

      The main line of fallout or skyrim or oblivion may get sidetracked, but its still a huge goal thats genuinely fun and satisfying to complete.

      • abraxas@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s not really what I’m saying, though. Bethesda’s signature is always that their faction quests are deeper and cooler than their main quests. You’re allowed not to like that, but it’s definitely how Bethesda works.

        The main line of fallout or skyrim or oblivion may get sidetracked, but its still a huge goal thats genuinely fun and satisfying to complete.

        I agree, as I felt Starfield was satisfying to complete. It’s just not the point. They call them Sandbox RPGs for a reason. For Skyrim, I would take the Companions, Thieves Guild, Dark Brotherhood, Winterhold, etc over the main plot every day. For Fallout 4, it was different because the main plot turns into “pick a faction to wipe out the Institute (unless you pick the Institute)”. Yeah, NV is similar with that. It got a lot of flak for that, but I thought it worked. Fallout 3, though… “I wanna make clean water”. It’s fun, but not why F3 is a masterpiece.

    • Zoboomafoo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      You can say you don’t like it, but it certainly technically worked.

      Don’t hide behind objectivity when discussing art, it’s all subjective all the time, and even statements that declare something is are subjective. The immersion is shattered because that is my experience with it for the reasons I already stated.

      I don’t need to add an ‘in my opinion’ because it never will be anything but my opinion

      • abraxas@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Unfortunately, you’re not the only person I’m discussing Starfield with here, and most are trying to tell me that Starfield is objectively bad. I am not “hiding behind” objectivity, I’m arguing that Starfield isn’t “objectively bad”.

        • Zoboomafoo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Much like literally, objectively is often used for emphasis, and I hate it, those words shouldn’t be used that way

          • abraxas@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I think people here are actually trying to make objective statements about the quality of the game (that is, lack thereof). Though they aren’t really quantifying good reasons to support that high bar.