Judging from all those videos, I'm still afraid that planets will look extremely generic and that their optimization will be very bad. That in combination with average visuals could bury this project. They still have some time though, so there is still hope.
It's been so long now since Bethesda released a new game after the disasterous Fallout '76, which I thankfully avoided like the plague, and that wasn't a re-re-release of The Elder Scrolls: Skyrim that I fear that by the time Starfield is released that it will be dated and not very impressive at all. Starfield isn't using the same engine as Skyrim, is it?
Taking it very personal, are you? Upset much? Bad day? Okay, let me tell you my reasoning, because unlike you I can imagine why somebody puts Starfield in the same bin as NMS: You fly around in space ships. You collect resources in much the same manner you do with NMS, and probably, via crafting and upgrading, will do a lot of the stuff you do with such resources to a similar end as in NMS, crafting equipment, ships, base parts, and improvements for all of them. When it comes to the expectation to how much time will be spent with those core mechanics, I could imagine it taking up similar amounts of time. Maybe my expactations are wrong, can't tell. We shall see when the game's around. And in regards to your "are you kidding", no I am confirming I am not kidding, since you seem to have a difficult time grasping the remote possibility of it. My reasoning, once again, to help you understand somebody else's thought: If they wouldn't have put engineering hours and resources into Starfield, they probably would have put those resources into developing TES's next iteration beyond TESO. Hence, I would have much more liked to see that happening than developing a space game and developing TES for a release time some years later, when I could have had a game with a setting I prefer years sooner. I hope I made myself easier to understand, and that you have survived the emotional stress I put you under with my post.
Based on the tone of your post and attempts at armchair psychology, who is taking things personal here?
"Starfield is built in Creation Engine 2, a modified and updated form of the Creation Engine that was used for Skyrim, Fallout 4, and Fallout 76. Reportedly, The Elder Scrolls VI will also use Creation Engine 2." https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/starfield-everything-we-know (I have hundreds of hours in FO76, its one of my go to "I don't know what to play" games. Another one is NMS)
I know what kinda games i like and which i dont - i havent regretted a single day 1 purchase i've made the last 5 years. This is going to be one of them btw.
Also, thankfully, Starfield is being made by the main Bethesda Game Studio. Where as Fallout 76 was handled by another studio. The former BattleCry Studio... where their startup game (BattleCry) did so well that it got canceled, the studio was rebranded and restructured... And the development for FO76 was so disastrous they had to reach out to multiple other studios under ZeniMax to try and get the game finished. This will be the first game from the main studio since Fallout 4. So, I'm looking forward to it. Also, same engine as Fallout 4... just heavily modified.
Yeah... Bethesda Game Studios games tend to have release day issues for a while. But they usually work to solve those issues in a reasonable amount of time. There is no denying that their games eventually become classics. Sales figures do not lie. Even Fallout 76 recovered after the disastrous release. Most of the initial issues of that game stemmed from assigning development to their newest studio in Austin. They did stumble a lot bringing fixes on time (and breaking more stuff) and unpopular game microtransactions. However, the game still brings in around 10,000 players every day (which is not very impressive for a multiplayer game) and they keep releasing content regularly. Funny enough, more people still play Fallout 4 than 76. For Starfield - I like the change in setting, but wasn't totally impressed by the gameplay video last year. The characters still looked like Fallout models. But I have enjoyed all their other single-player games. Unless there are big warning signs on the early reviews, I know this is a day-one purchase for me.
This is the only issue i have with the game, that bethesda is still using gamebryo engine (even if they dont call it that anymore...)
No other engine can support the interactivity, scale and scope of Bethesda games. I would be extremely worried if they picked something generic like Unreal Engine.
I'd say that red engine handles it much better than gamebryo, and since cdpr has chosen to go with UE5 going forward, i'd say that it can handle it just fine.
Just because of gamebryo engine I am hesitant to buy it. I'll probably wait for some proper reviews or deep sale. I can definitely get over the bugs, but I'm absolutely tired with the sliding characters, rigid animations and bonkers physics. I also don't really trust them to make a good RPG, after Fallout 4 or even worse Fallout 76. On top of that, the gameplay trailer wasn't very convincing. E.g. combat itself looks very similar to F4, which isn't surprising. But If they have this FPS combat, then for me, it just has to feel good to shoot enemies. But how do you combine that with RPG systems? It surely is possible, but they would have to be at least a little bit more creative then just boring "firearms skill" they had in Fallout 4 or basically any other RPG they have ever made.
