It would be hilarious if Bethesda added "Winner of Most Innovative Game of 2023" sticker on their Starfield editions ( without realizing they were only trolled by Steam players).
If true, that makes sense then. I was thinking something fishy was going on since Starfield and the "Most Innovative Game of the Year" award was the only one not displayed on the front page. Maybe even Steam was wondering why it won.
I nearly choked on my tea when I first read the title of some RU-vid video mentioning the innovation award for this game. I think I immediately wrote, have we regressed from No Man's Sky?! That game may have been only a glorified tech demo on launch but it packed an entire galaxy with 18 quintillion planets in a seamlessly explorable loading screen free experience. What does this game innovate? Oh, it must be the SSD only hardware restriction. That's gotta be it.
Red Dead 2 also won "Labor of Love", another shitpost award because of how Rockstar gave up on the online mode because it wasn't as profitable as selling children car decals for real money in GTA V. Bethesda is just desperate or stupid enough to actually laud themselves this "Innovation" award, because they've received next to no additional praise from any other game awards outlet. Of course this won't stop them from dropping a "Game of the Year" award like they always do.
Starfield innovation is that Bethesda managed to create a game without game play. So, in a way. It is a innovative indeed. And yeah, i voted for Starfield as well because i figured out that steam community clearly have there troll award going. I mean RDR2 got Labor of love lol.
I would even argument if the ship building is new system. Sure the GUI seems like that but it really reminds me of skyrim house, just with more loading screens. I wouldn't be even surprised if the whole ship thingy is coded as flying house just changing locations and that's why you can't really "fly" it anywhere.
Great video. Though after comparing it to ED and NMS, I was kind of expecting a Star Citizen comparison as well. But ED and NMS were all that was needed to say what needs to be said I suppose. (However if people want to know why I think Starfield and Star Citizen make for a good comparison, you should watch the Star Engine trailer and you can see for yourself, no voice over needed.)
Yeah, Star Citizen and Outer Worlds (and we probably can find even more games of similar scale) are great for comparing to Starfield, but I didn't have any experience playing them, so I decided not to make any comparisons based on my first impressions for these two games. I have a decent hour count for ED and NMS, so that's why I felt confident comparing Starfield with these two, as I can navigate the gameplay details much easier. This makes for a less objective point (and I'm sure Starfield looks even worse when compared to Star Citizen than with ED), but I decided to go with my personal experience with these games and make some takes based on that.
7:30 its worse modders found there is a fully explorable world but each dot limits you to a 1/3 of area and jumping from one to the next area crashes you. planets where 2/3 you cant walk on, who and why was this developed?
This is EXACTLY why I stopped playing this garbage ... and a graphic of max 30 FPS with my 3070 and I9 13900K ... like seriously ... it should be called loadingfield ...
I had more fun playing Skyrim for the 10th time, than I did playing Starfield NG++. To be fair, the game came free with my GPU or I wouldn't have played it. Todd Howard should be criticized for Starfield, especially coming off the heels the multi year Fallout '76 fiasco.
Most innovative would always go to Warframe for me since it is still the only game in it's subgenre. With the maybe next one being Duet Night Abyss if it's no Cash Grab Gacha
I agree with a lot of what your saying. The planets are not PNGs they are real models which makes it even more disappointing that it takes so long to get to them and then you cant land on them
I was an original backer - I came to a realisation some years ago. It won't work. Practically, as a game, it won't work. But at least it has vision and ambition and it's broken some tech barriers that could pave the way for something else. Star citizen itself though, it's too diffuse and unfocussed, too much technical debt, fuzzy design and many other things will either kill it or make it a huge disappointment if it's ever finished - which I believe it won't be. It's an important, milestone of a project but as a game - it's become incoherent, nonsense that will be utterly unworkable in practice as a multiplayer experience.
@@Zero41sv guess you haven't tried the alpha recently. I have had continuous ops with 30+ org mates multicrewing and single piloting ships for everything from combat stuff to mining and salvage consistently. Yes there are bugs and we have to deal with them, but there's a lot of fun to be had. Oh, I'm also an OB.
@@aaronmcx No I withdrew my backing about two years ago. I'm not saying it's impossible to make your own fun in the small scale it operates at now. But the wake up for me was walking around my Starfarer. That's a lot of ground to cover to reach the systems dotted around the ship - assuming they stick to the original vision and realism aim. In order to make that viable, the time to kill will have to be great, which ruins the attackers experience or forces a meta where you need a blob of fighters to bring the ttk down which then renders the crew play somewhat unviable. And that's before we consider that turrets can't be sensibly balanced. It hit me that it was a bunch of great ideas we all fantasise about but which, when released at scale, just doesn't work the way we all imagine. But it remains an important piece of software that had to be built. It's a large r&d exercise for the industry and if people find fun in it too - all the better. But it can't be the game I dreamed of because the game I (and many others) dreamed of only works as a single player or small co-op like experience, and that's an important personal lesson too. It's like that famous study that found people tell you they want a dark rich coffee, but actually buy milky ones. What we think we like and what we actually like are less the same than it's natural to think.
when they released new super mario in 2D and nothing cinematic: what a wonderful game, this gameplay never dies. a dream for old and new platform fans when sea of stars came out 2D and nothing cinematic: what a wonderful game, this gameplay never dies. a dream for old and new fans of classic RPGs when new zelda came out at 30 fps and nothing cinematic: what a wonderful game, this gameplay never dies. a dream for adventure fans old and new When did Starfield come out in the Fallout 3 model: this Bethesda model is dated. It's not cinematic. fallout 3 is 15 years old... it's gone. I never care about Bethesda again There was literally a critic who criticized the game because he said it's only good for those who think that video games reached their peak with Fallout 3 and didn't evolve anymore... he actually used that word: EVOLUTION... now ask his opinion about it of stars or super mario wonder..
Reusing old mechanics and freshening up a great game for new audience isn't bad. It's bad only in case you've teased a totally different level of freedom and innovation in gameplay in all of your marketing campaigns and didn't deliver on any of these promises. And even in this case, the game may be fun to play despite being outdated. The point in how Bethesda makes games always was in reusing old mechanics and just improving them for current gen gameplay demands. And I can't say it's bad, it's just a style of development and there are a lot of people who likes that. But when you get an award for the most innovative gameplay for this game, this is beyond insane.
I agree on the conclusion. I was burned out of Mario after Super Mario World. Every game after that is basically a reskin (other than spin-offs, of course). The first Mario Maker was neat to watch, but I never bought it. Galaxy was a different style and looked pretty cool, but instead of creating more "Mario" lore, it felt more like they made an entirely new canon and shoved Mario into it. Plus, I hate motion controls, so that was a no-go. When I feel like playing Mario, I go plug in the SNES (which is not very often anymore, honestly). Everything started off so promising, then Nintendo got afraid of coming up with anything new. Bethesda, meanwhile, forgot HOW to make anything new, even when they try.
@@whitemanex I agreed that it should not have won the awarded, but you called outdated... if starfield is outdated, sea of stars, mario wonder, also are.
Why are you complaining about VATS in Fallout? It’s literally part of the lore, lmao. It’s not a mechanic, it’s the biggest hint the entire world is a G.E.C.K. Couldn’t make it past that part, sorry.
I wasn't talking about lore or stories in this video. The take I made about VATS was built on its impact on overall gameplay. The main utility of VATS is to compensate for the older games' rough shooting and combat in general and a way to turn an FPS/TPS into a turn-based game. While I don't have anything against turn-based games, having both of those combat mechanics feels inconsistent and immersion breaking for me. For F4 it felt like an outdated feature, serving only the diehard fans or being there because of the lore (that I'm not very proficient in to have a lore debate). If we're talking about innovative gameplay, utilizing aim-assisting feature from 2008 in 2015 and 2018 (for F76) is not really an innovation, even if it's good and serves its purpose. It's like with the other take about Skyrim. Do I care about buckets on heads being an ultimate robbery weapon? No. Is it a weird feature that makes the gameplay look outdated and illogical? For sure.
Further, you said Fallout “still” has VATS. Don’t try to pretend like you didn’t know it was lore-based, but you should have done before you looked like an utter idiot here. You need to understand something if you’re making Bethesda content: do not come for the lore. We will eat you alive.
You still don’t get it - you said VATS was STILL a feature as if it was done because of limitations - it WASNT. It wasn’t created because of your stupid turn based theory. Jesus Christ, no wonder your channel has no views.
After seeing a lot of the "I hate Starfield" videos it has become obvious no one really has any idea what they are talking about, they just haven't been playing games as long as I have, or are just jumped on the "me too" wagon. If you look at the grand scheme of things Starfield hasn't done anything wrong that at least one other game hasn't done. Starfield is better than a lot of games in many ways, and worse than some other games in other ways. It doesn't make it worthy of the "Hate train" it has been getting in my opinion. The other games with the same problems did not get this "hate train", so SF doesn't deserve it either.
@@Terranallias18 It appears you slightly misunderstood my comment. Some aspects of Starfield are better than other games. Graphics are lightyears ahead of those in Vanilla 2011 Skyrim for example. I played Starfield for about 300-400 hours before I ran into my first bug, that fact alone is way better than almost every other game I have played. Some had bugs the first minute of play, personally I wonder about the quality of their PC/XBOX. I could go on but a comment box in a YT video isnt big enough for all the comparisons I could do.
