I know this doesn’t help you, but someone might find it useful: Steam’s two-hour refund limit only applies to automatic, unconditional refunds. If a refund is justified (e.g. the game is a broken disaster, or the publisher lied about its nature), it may be granted beyond the two-hour window, like it was after Activision lied about AI usage in Black Ops 7.
I also pirated it and spent most if not all my time building ships. naturally had to use console codes to bypass the restrictions but that’s all I did.
the game itself? boring. the characters? bunch of god damn nerds. Like seriously your party are some of the most whiny unlikable characters in gaming. I didn’t care for any of them. AND THEN if you decide “oh I want to be a pirate and do bad things” they just whine even more about it.
I have a feeling Bethesda’s executives ordered the development team to make it as un-controversial as possible. “I don’t give a damn if the game is terrible. You will lose your jobs if you compromise this merger.”
Because influencers tell them to? It’s not like Xbox players haven’t been taking about the bugs and other issues for the last few years.
But really though. The gun play is fun ads hell, just like any Bethesda game. And, it’s true, you can build a ship, take off, walk around in it… there’s a certain appeal to that. The guts are there to make a decent game. They just don’t love it quite as much as the least of the four fans who still play it.
How so? They’re fun, and the guns, while silly, are fun to shoot.
Do you mean they’re historically inaccurate?
Or do we just have incompatible views of fun (i.e. it’s subjective)?
The only Bethesda game I can think of with shitty gun play is Skyrim, because then we’re talking about archery. And then, it’s shitty because the way arrows work is, they are spawned at the player’s feet, elevated to the bow, and then fired relatively accurately in an arc. The problem is, the ground is not completely flat, which is why if you’re firing uphill, or there’s a ridge at your feet, you fire into the ground despite very obviously clearing it.
And the only problem I have with guns in Bethesda games applies to just about any game with machine guns: bullets become far less deadly when you can shoot a lot of them in a short amount of time than when you can only fire one at a time. This is categorically false: every bullet from a machine gun is just as deadly as that same bullet would have been, had it been fired from a single-shot weapon. They just make machine guns do less damage per hit to balance the gun, so it’s not overly powerful, and that is stupid. Sometimes they at least make these guns cheaper to shoot, so they’re balanced to cost as well as damage, but in a world where the minimum cost of one bullet (or arrow) is one {CURRENCY} (bottle cap, Septim, whatever), they aren’t nearly cheap enough to justify the damage reduction.
But, maybe next time instead of saying “no you’re wrong,” give us some context. It’s fine to have a differing opinion if you can back it up with some examples.
This is one of the most common criticisms of the Bethesda Fallout games, so I didn’t think I had to qualify my opinion. I am far from the first person to make this claim. Even Bethesda realized the gunplay was lacking in their Fallout games, which is why they hired people from Doom to work on Starfield.
The guns have little feeling of impact or weight, they lack good animations, and there is little variety in the types of recoil or spread. Most of the time you just end up spraying at the enemy, and it takes too many rounds. The guns feel more like squirt guns than real guns.
So you’re saying each bullet should be fatal? That’s how I played Deus Ex (1), but DX1 was a very different game to a modern action RPG (though, it was one as well). Easy and Hard meant your weapons did more or less damage than the enemy. Medium meant it was equal, and Realistic meant it was equal, but each hit mattered more. You could get hit once, maybe twice, but not three times without healing. Also, headshots were lethal. They tell you headshots are lethal, but if you’re playing on anything but realistic… they’re not. (“And remember JC, a headshot is a lethal takedown.” Lies!) So, I knew where the enemies were, and I didn’t get hit. You can’t really play that way in Fallout, especially during the bigger battles. You’re going to get hit, a lot, and you’re supposed to make it to the end somehow. So the player gets a little bullet spongey, and depending on the setting, the enemies may be, too.
You may not be the first to criticise the gunplay, but a lot of people also do like the gunplay, so I guess it’s a fair point either way and a matter of what you like. I just hadn’t heard much from the other side.
Dude, no one is asking for realism. Why are you strawmaning?
Play a modern shooter, and compare that to Starfield or FO4. They just don’t feel good. Weapons don’t have weight to them, and there’s no impact to them being fired. Your character barely reacts. You just run around spraying bullets, and it doesn’t feel like anything.
What it needs are good animations, recoil systems, camera punch, VFX, and things like that. Starfield and FO4 have almost none of that. It’s the bare minimum to not be absolute trash. If you’re comparing it to FO3, they’re fairly good. If you’re comparing it to something like Battlefield, Escape from Tarkov, or anything modern, not so much.
That’s not to say there’s nothing to enjoy. I think FO4 was reasonably good, and FO3 and NV were good too. I just didn’t enjoy them for the gunplay. It’s everything around that that makes them good.
Personally though, I think Starfield sucks. The story is bland as hell if you know much sci-fi (if you’re failing to appeal to the audience that follows the genre, you failed). Exoring sucks. Clearing dungeons is pretty boring after you’ve done the five dungeons a few times. The loading screens, even on an NVMe SSD, constantly take you out of the experience. I just don’t understand what there is to like. I’d rather play FO4 with a bunch of cool mods if I’m playing something like it, or Morrowind if I want a good Bethesda RPG.
Why are you moving goalposts and whining when the person can’t keep up? Just say what you mean. You’re being needlessly hostile, and for what? I’m some big shot you feel the need to take down a peg? Congrats, you sound smart. I tried to jump through your hoop but you pulled it away too soon. Now what? You just point and laugh? Okay, now that’s done, where does that leave us? You’ve shown everyone you’re an asshole, and I tried to argue in good faith. Does that make you better than me? Or just provide you with some entertainment?
No I’m saying the guns should feel different, have some heft and weight to them. Use the revolver in half life 2 for an example of a gun with weight behind the shots.
You’re free to enjoy whatever you like, I’m not saying you shouldn’t. I just think it’s odd for the OP of this comment thread to say “it’s got good gunplay, it’s a Bethesda game” because the general opinion was that Bethesda games were lacking in this very area until Starfield. Bethesda themselves realized they needed to improve the gunplay from the Fallout games, they brought people over from Doom for this specific reason.
True, but developers from id Software helped Bethesda specifically for Starfield’s gunplay, which is actually fun this time around compared to Fallout 4.
The gun play is fun ads hell, just like any Bethesda game
You must not have played Fallout 3 or New Vegas. The gunplay was pretty bad before Fallout 4, to the point where you were better off using V.A.T.S. most of the time.
That being said, the gunplay since Fallout 4 has been pretty good. Especially the auto-lean around corners when you use ADS
You’re fucking nuts if this is your response. I never said anything about age.
And guess what? I played New Vegas when it was new as well. Loved the game, but the fact of the matter is that its gun mechanics are terrible, evem when you compare it to other FPS games from that same year.
Fallout 3 came out in 2008. Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare released in 2007. Guess which one has the better gunplay?
Fuck off with your ageism accusation. You want to know why age is irrelevant to the conversation? Because I never brought it up, jackass
Because they only have Playstation consoles and keep their eyes and ears shut to anything not on Playstation, so they haven’t heard how bad of a game it is.
Youre right, its a game people are ‘told’ to buy, rather than a recommendation. The first thing they see when they start up their console will be an ad for it.
Consoles have always had that market of just buying a few big games a year, they never broke into the indie scene very well.
But PC isnt immune to it, Steam shows ads for launches on startup and both platforms suffer from social media influence. The biggest seller of games has to be Twitch. Get a bunch of streamers playing your shitty game and youll sell loads of copies.
Did I? the whole conversation is moot. Why wouldn’t a store show you what it is selling? Yes, launch titles get the spotlight for a while. Should movie theaters remove all the posters because it is disgusting marketing(?). There’s a difference between that and egregious, invasive and unethical advertisement. But it is impossible to expect a point of sale to not advertise what it sells. Even still, Steam allows you to disable startup ads and you can also boot directly to library so you don’t have to see the store page ever unless you want to. It’s so much different from what Play Station and Xbox do.
Steam shows ads for launches on startup and both platforms suffer from social media influence.
I haven’t seen the startup ads in what seems like a decade. I don’t see a big deal with content creators providing reviews (and commentary), the key is finding content creators who are independent and focus on the needs of their viewers/readers.
There’s no issue with it, they are obviously going to take money to play a game, that’s on their own morals to decide.
But a lot of people just blindly buy whatever is shown to them, its why standards for games in the mainstream market has fallen off a cliff over the last 15 years. We have people buying $30 skins on the regular…
Why would someone buy Starfield?
I pirated it and wish I could get my seed time back.
The wear on my mouse from clicking on the torrent already wasn’t worth it.
I fucking bought it, imagine my despair
Why?
I played it a tad too long to be refunded
I know this doesn’t help you, but someone might find it useful: Steam’s two-hour refund limit only applies to automatic, unconditional refunds. If a refund is justified (e.g. the game is a broken disaster, or the publisher lied about its nature), it may be granted beyond the two-hour window, like it was after Activision lied about AI usage in Black Ops 7.
Thanks, always good to know.
In the case of Starfield, the game ran fine for me, it was just shitty, so not sure this applies…
My condolences.
Thank you, that’s very kind
I also pirated it and spent most if not all my time building ships. naturally had to use console codes to bypass the restrictions but that’s all I did.
the game itself? boring. the characters? bunch of god damn nerds. Like seriously your party are some of the most whiny unlikable characters in gaming. I didn’t care for any of them. AND THEN if you decide “oh I want to be a pirate and do bad things” they just whine even more about it.
I have a feeling Bethesda’s executives ordered the development team to make it as un-controversial as possible. “I don’t give a damn if the game is terrible. You will lose your jobs if you compromise this merger.”
I’ve had a lot of fun with it on Xbox since launch
Some people enjoy bad games and that’s okay.
Because influencers tell them to? It’s not like Xbox players haven’t been taking about the bugs and other issues for the last few years.
But really though. The gun play is fun ads hell, just like any Bethesda game. And, it’s true, you can build a ship, take off, walk around in it… there’s a certain appeal to that. The guts are there to make a decent game. They just don’t love it quite as much as the least of the four fans who still play it.
Bethesda games notoriously have shitty gun play.
How so? They’re fun, and the guns, while silly, are fun to shoot.
Do you mean they’re historically inaccurate?
Or do we just have incompatible views of fun (i.e. it’s subjective)?
The only Bethesda game I can think of with shitty gun play is Skyrim, because then we’re talking about archery. And then, it’s shitty because the way arrows work is, they are spawned at the player’s feet, elevated to the bow, and then fired relatively accurately in an arc. The problem is, the ground is not completely flat, which is why if you’re firing uphill, or there’s a ridge at your feet, you fire into the ground despite very obviously clearing it.
And the only problem I have with guns in Bethesda games applies to just about any game with machine guns: bullets become far less deadly when you can shoot a lot of them in a short amount of time than when you can only fire one at a time. This is categorically false: every bullet from a machine gun is just as deadly as that same bullet would have been, had it been fired from a single-shot weapon. They just make machine guns do less damage per hit to balance the gun, so it’s not overly powerful, and that is stupid. Sometimes they at least make these guns cheaper to shoot, so they’re balanced to cost as well as damage, but in a world where the minimum cost of one bullet (or arrow) is one {CURRENCY} (bottle cap, Septim, whatever), they aren’t nearly cheap enough to justify the damage reduction.
But, maybe next time instead of saying “no you’re wrong,” give us some context. It’s fine to have a differing opinion if you can back it up with some examples.
This is one of the most common criticisms of the Bethesda Fallout games, so I didn’t think I had to qualify my opinion. I am far from the first person to make this claim. Even Bethesda realized the gunplay was lacking in their Fallout games, which is why they hired people from Doom to work on Starfield.
The guns have little feeling of impact or weight, they lack good animations, and there is little variety in the types of recoil or spread. Most of the time you just end up spraying at the enemy, and it takes too many rounds. The guns feel more like squirt guns than real guns.
So you’re saying each bullet should be fatal? That’s how I played Deus Ex (1), but DX1 was a very different game to a modern action RPG (though, it was one as well). Easy and Hard meant your weapons did more or less damage than the enemy. Medium meant it was equal, and Realistic meant it was equal, but each hit mattered more. You could get hit once, maybe twice, but not three times without healing. Also, headshots were lethal. They tell you headshots are lethal, but if you’re playing on anything but realistic… they’re not. (“And remember JC, a headshot is a lethal takedown.” Lies!) So, I knew where the enemies were, and I didn’t get hit. You can’t really play that way in Fallout, especially during the bigger battles. You’re going to get hit, a lot, and you’re supposed to make it to the end somehow. So the player gets a little bullet spongey, and depending on the setting, the enemies may be, too.
You may not be the first to criticise the gunplay, but a lot of people also do like the gunplay, so I guess it’s a fair point either way and a matter of what you like. I just hadn’t heard much from the other side.
Dude, no one is asking for realism. Why are you strawmaning?
Play a modern shooter, and compare that to Starfield or FO4. They just don’t feel good. Weapons don’t have weight to them, and there’s no impact to them being fired. Your character barely reacts. You just run around spraying bullets, and it doesn’t feel like anything.
What it needs are good animations, recoil systems, camera punch, VFX, and things like that. Starfield and FO4 have almost none of that. It’s the bare minimum to not be absolute trash. If you’re comparing it to FO3, they’re fairly good. If you’re comparing it to something like Battlefield, Escape from Tarkov, or anything modern, not so much.
That’s not to say there’s nothing to enjoy. I think FO4 was reasonably good, and FO3 and NV were good too. I just didn’t enjoy them for the gunplay. It’s everything around that that makes them good.
Personally though, I think Starfield sucks. The story is bland as hell if you know much sci-fi (if you’re failing to appeal to the audience that follows the genre, you failed). Exoring sucks. Clearing dungeons is pretty boring after you’ve done the five dungeons a few times. The loading screens, even on an NVMe SSD, constantly take you out of the experience. I just don’t understand what there is to like. I’d rather play FO4 with a bunch of cool mods if I’m playing something like it, or Morrowind if I want a good Bethesda RPG.
Why are you moving goalposts and whining when the person can’t keep up? Just say what you mean. You’re being needlessly hostile, and for what? I’m some big shot you feel the need to take down a peg? Congrats, you sound smart. I tried to jump through your hoop but you pulled it away too soon. Now what? You just point and laugh? Okay, now that’s done, where does that leave us? You’ve shown everyone you’re an asshole, and I tried to argue in good faith. Does that make you better than me? Or just provide you with some entertainment?
We agree on Starfield though, so there’s that.
No I’m saying the guns should feel different, have some heft and weight to them. Use the revolver in half life 2 for an example of a gun with weight behind the shots.
You’re free to enjoy whatever you like, I’m not saying you shouldn’t. I just think it’s odd for the OP of this comment thread to say “it’s got good gunplay, it’s a Bethesda game” because the general opinion was that Bethesda games were lacking in this very area until Starfield. Bethesda themselves realized they needed to improve the gunplay from the Fallout games, they brought people over from Doom for this specific reason.
Bethesda still hasn’t provided the fun of knocking someone on their ass with a point blank shotgun blast. Manhunt did that 20 years ago.
I would have said Resident Evil (maybe not “knocking them on their ass” but satisfying result of using a shotgun), but, fair point.
True, but developers from id Software helped Bethesda specifically for Starfield’s gunplay, which is actually fun this time around compared to Fallout 4.
Id helped with FO4 too. Sure, it’s a lot better than 3, but, compared to any other shooter, it’s pretty horrible.
The gun play in Fallout 4 was actually good. It’s 3 and New Vegas where it sucked
Eh, Starfield feels the same as any other regular modern shooter, so like COD. It doesn’t feel like Doom, of course, but that’s it’s own thing.
You must not have played Fallout 3 or New Vegas. The gunplay was pretty bad before Fallout 4, to the point where you were better off using V.A.T.S. most of the time.
That being said, the gunplay since Fallout 4 has been pretty good. Especially the auto-lean around corners when you use ADS
Removed by mod
You’re fucking nuts if this is your response. I never said anything about age.
And guess what? I played New Vegas when it was new as well. Loved the game, but the fact of the matter is that its gun mechanics are terrible, evem when you compare it to other FPS games from that same year.
Fallout 3 came out in 2008. Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare released in 2007. Guess which one has the better gunplay?
Fuck off with your ageism accusation. You want to know why age is irrelevant to the conversation? Because I never brought it up, jackass
Because they only have Playstation consoles and keep their eyes and ears shut to anything not on Playstation, so they haven’t heard how bad of a game it is.
Edit: Lemmy: Home of all 12 Starfield fans. 🤣
Youre right, its a game people are ‘told’ to buy, rather than a recommendation. The first thing they see when they start up their console will be an ad for it.
Consoles have always had that market of just buying a few big games a year, they never broke into the indie scene very well.
But PC isnt immune to it, Steam shows ads for launches on startup and both platforms suffer from social media influence. The biggest seller of games has to be Twitch. Get a bunch of streamers playing your shitty game and youll sell loads of copies.
At least you can turn off Steam’s startup ads. I forgot those even were a thing until you mentioned it since I haven’t seen them in years.
I have them disabled too, but even if you just open Steam, there will be an ad on the store page.
A store telling you what it sells?
Oh! The outrage! The audacity!
You missed the context.
Did I? the whole conversation is moot. Why wouldn’t a store show you what it is selling? Yes, launch titles get the spotlight for a while. Should movie theaters remove all the posters because it is disgusting marketing(?). There’s a difference between that and egregious, invasive and unethical advertisement. But it is impossible to expect a point of sale to not advertise what it sells. Even still, Steam allows you to disable startup ads and you can also boot directly to library so you don’t have to see the store page ever unless you want to. It’s so much different from what Play Station and Xbox do.
Yes. You did. We weren’t discussing stores advertising, but the effects.
I haven’t seen the startup ads in what seems like a decade. I don’t see a big deal with content creators providing reviews (and commentary), the key is finding content creators who are independent and focus on the needs of their viewers/readers.
There’s no issue with it, they are obviously going to take money to play a game, that’s on their own morals to decide.
But a lot of people just blindly buy whatever is shown to them, its why standards for games in the mainstream market has fallen off a cliff over the last 15 years. We have people buying $30 skins on the regular…
I got it for free with my cpu