Add “, yet” to the headline and come back in a year or two.
Currently AI may fail to produce a video game, but so was the case for images, videos, and texts only a few years ago.
Failure is a good thing because it’s preceded by attempt.
Apple started out with desktop computers. So by ‘staying in their lane’, they’d never made ipods, iphones, Apple silicon, earpods and airpods, the watch, etc. I think they had quite the success by diversing themselves.
Loading screens for nearly every door. In New Atlantis you can jump from the highest building and glide with your jetpack back to your ship. But taking the elevator and the train gets you two unnecessary loading screens. That’s just not 2023 game programming.
It depends. I’ve put over 200 hours into Starfield and didn’t experience any dull or boring parts. But I noticed them.
It’s an old-school game with decades old mechanics, which happened to push all the right buttons with me. But others find it’s boring.
Star Wars: Outlaws. Looks really promising.
Cyberpunk 2077: Phantom Liberty. I played through the base game twice, so I’ll need a bit more distance between the playthroughs.
Starfield, but only if there are significant updates, upgrades and expansions. I finished it twice back to back, so currently I’m a little tired of the game.
Any other single-player (action) RPG, that I stumble upon.
Some people have made “Bethesda” their trigger word and reflexively bite everyone saying it out. Right before they claim everyone else is at fault for that.
Normal discussions are now nigh impossible.
Neither is Starfield.
135 to 140 hours approximately. I didn’t put a lot of effort into outposts, so it could’ve been more.
How does a loading screen “prolong” playtime when the alternative is going or flying everywhere in real time?
Game is short. People complain. Game is long. People complain. Game makes you stare at five hour space travel. People complain. Game gives you fast travel. People complain. Game takes you by the hand. People complain. Game forces exploration. People complain.
I’m tired.
Some side quests in Starfield are longer than the main quests of other games.
For example, it took me the same amount of time to play through SF once as it took to play through The Witcher twice, including the DLCs.
“Little to no content” is an outright lie.
Also not true. Complexity alone doesn’t make a good game / movie / book / piece of art. And lack thereof doesn’t make anything worse.
Why is it that when many people like a thing because that thing appeals to masses, it’s automatically categorised as lower quality?
Nobody seriously claimed Starfield to be the game of all games. It’s good. It’s fine. It’s not perfect. So what?
That’s not the definition of mediocrity. Trying to appeal to a bigger audience doesn’t make a game mediocre in the same way not every niche game has the potential of being a masterpiece just by not being that much likeable.
Some games are popular and good.
If Bethesda games are so mediocre, why are they so popular among players who love to put hundreds of hours into them? I can’t imagine them all playing total conversion mods.
It’s become such a custom to poop on Bethesda for making “shallow”, “uninteresting” games that still everybody talks about. As if there weren’t enough real flaws in their games to give them heat for.
No I don’t. I had 100 hours in The Witcher including all three expansions and I think that’s not what could be called “rushed”.
In Starfield I’m currently at 90 hours and just built my first outpost and a decent ship. I don’t know where I’m in the main quest but I’ve aquired only three powers and artifacts so far.
Starfield is a bad game because people want it to be a bad game. I read a negative Steam review that complained about the estimated 150 hours of the story were too short. One hundred and fifty hours. In the same amount of time you probably can complete Cyberpunk and The Witcher back to back.
Of course Starfield is far from being a perfect game. But some players’ expectations can’t be distinguished from entitlement anymore. To quote a movie title, they want “everything, everywhere, all at once”. And yes, then Starfield must be bad.
I on the other hand really do enjoy it.
Thank you for explaining. That’s a thing most sites leave out: tell people how the keys cannot be stolen while still working on a different device.
The advantage - from my very incomplete understanding - is that your passkeys cannot be phished or stolen from you. So only you from your device can log-in to the site. Which leaves me with the question, how cross-device passkeys work.
So why keep this useless, failed platform in the news? Stop giving Musk publicity of any kind.
Who would buy stuff from a person they never heard of? How did they get popular?
Of course, ‘sharenting’ is a word.