84
Starfield on PC is the best way to play - but the game still requires a lot of work
(www.eurogamer.net)
this post was submitted on 10 Sep 2023
84 points (91.2% liked)
Starfield
2861 readers
1 users here now
Welcome to the Starfield community on Lemmy.zip!
- Follow instance rules (no spam, keep it civil and respectful, be constructive, tag NSFW)
Helpful links:
Spoiler policy:
- No spoilers in titles; if you want to share images with spoilers, preferably post the image in the body of the post. If you do make an image post, mark it NSFW.
- Add
[Spoilers]to your title if there will be untagged spoilers in the post. - Game mechanics and general discoveries (ship parts, weapons, etc) don't need a spoiler tag.
- Details about questlines and other story related content are spoilers. Use your best judgement!
Post & comment spoiler syntax:
<spoiler here>
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Well, yeah, it's technically possible, but it was not easy enough for them to implement in that engine for it to be the most financially feasible option in order to deliver on the amount of content/other engine changes that they wanted to, is probably the more complex answer. I'm sure if Bethesda stopped at nothing to achieve no loading screens that they could do it, but at the cost of whatever instability or lost time for other engine improvements or content created, which is the choice they made.
Unless we could see the nonexistent alternate Starfield where that was the priority instead it's hard to say whether it's "because of the engine" or not, whether that is a literal thing or more of a tradeoff of labor time thing.
Well, we can see other games where they did sort out the loading screen complexity while also including all of that other stuff.
I'm not going to assume the way they made space is the same way they'd make a regular overworld in their older games. If it were easy enough to just do it like they always do, then they would've done it, I think.
No matter what I feel like that's a pretty big deal, having seamless transition through space, and it's not our place to armchair speculate that they could've done it without sacrificing much else, unless the person making the criticism is a crack programmer that could've stepped in there and been like "move aside, idiots, I'm here to cure all of your shitty design with ease and miserliness"
No, we can still criticize design choices of major studios by comparing output to other studios without being experts.
Sure, but I think it's important to try to understand the limitations and costs of these things and why it wasn't already like that. If you whittle it down to strictly design choice then it seems braindead simple to have designed it that way to begin with, so the true answer of why it was done is probably more complicated.
Should there have been less loading screens? Duh. If there were, though, there would've undoubtedly been compromises and a difference in scope of content in other areas. It's worth criticizing, but at this point I doubt anyone from Bethesda could look through the internet without tripping over a "the loading screens suck" post