|
they added more stuff to the fallout 4 combat formula with clambering/mantling jetpacks and combat slides. Shame the latter is kinda useless tho.
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2023 00:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 14:01 |
|
|
Tankbuster posted:The plot is alright at getting you to go out exploring. The bigger issue is that there is nothing stopping you from abusing fast travel. Fallout 4's plot was also servicable but the game was carried hard by it's exploration and general gameplay loop - that was before survival mode came out. Honestly I still have difficulties figuring out what "triggers" literal fast travel-- sometimes standing on the ground and "travel to location" will drop me in orbit (even if there's no scanning in orbit), sometimes it'll park me there in my ship, sometimes it'll drop me directly at the location on foot with my ship nowhere in sight. Sometimes I can skip red-route jumps, sometimes I can't. Is it a bug, a non-obvious feature, a mystery wrapped in an enigma? 
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2023 00:34
|
|
|
Ursine Catastrophe posted:Honestly I still have difficulties figuring out what "triggers" literal fast travel-- sometimes standing on the ground and "travel to location" will drop me in orbit (even if there's no scanning in orbit), sometimes it'll park me there in my ship, sometimes it'll drop me directly at the location on foot with my ship nowhere in sight. Sometimes I can skip red-route jumps, sometimes I can't. Is it a bug, a non-obvious feature, a mystery wrapped in an enigma? It feels weirdly inconsistent, even down to where and when you can fast travel or not. Like, I can generally get a handle on how a game system works and understand what action I need to take to get a specific result and after ~160 hours in Starfield I still manage to choose the wrong thing and have to go through additional steps to get where I intend. I am not the smartest man, but I'm going to blame the design here. e: For example, there's a scenario with the Starborn, when you first encounter their ship. You can blow it up or not, but if you don't blow it up you need to warp away to end the encounter. Naturally, I popped open the star map, picked another star system and discovered that I couldn't go there because I was "in combat". But you can warp in combat, it's explicitly a mechanic. You have to either have a mission with a POI destination selected, or just orient you ship by dead reckoning towards another star system until the location indicator appears, then target it, and hit the hotkey to jump. Sometimes you can fast travel from within a building. Sometimes you can't. It might be related to whether you load into an interior cell, but it doesn't seem to be 100% consistent there either. It's loving bewildering. My favourite is that if you use the map to select a planet to navigate to, and then a POI to land at, and you've landed anywhere on that planet before, it will just fast travel you there instead, popping you out in the environment in whatever you happened to be wearing when you opened the menu. Hope you didn't need a space suit. infernal machines fucked around with this message at 00:45 on Dec 29, 2023 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2023 00:37
|
|
|
"travel to x" seems to be orbit, "land," when I've selected a poi I've already been to, seems to spawn me on the planet right next to where I'm wanting to go. I bet that's what seems to skip red routes, too. Landing at an unexplored poi is still a mystery for me too, though--sometimes I land right on the pad and can begin my assault, sometimes I have to start with a seven minute moonwalk to the research lab or whatever. I don't think it depends on whether or not the poi has a landing pad. e fast traveling in buildings is something I just started assuming I could do and trying before even trying walking out of the cave/station/brothel Inspector Hound fucked around with this message at 00:52 on Dec 29, 2023 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2023 00:49
|
|
|
The size of your ship makes a difference to where you can land, but there's enough inconsistency otherwise that it's impossible to guess where you're going to end up just based on that. Beyond a certain size, you ship will almost always land a good distance away from the POI, even if there's a landing pad, and even if the landing pad is big enough to accommodate your ship. Except when it doesn't. I think it might be one of the many things that relies on a specific flag being set on the landing zone, and like so many things in the game, the flag is inconsistently applied.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2023 00:52
|
|
|
The game doesn't play the landing animation on areas you've already landed in for some reason. Thankfully there is already a mod for that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2023 00:55
|
|
|
idk what they could conceivably do in dlcs that would make this game not suck. everything outside of the cities is completely soulless and the msq is just devoid of pathos. even adding a ton of handmade pois wouldn't do much because you still have the problem with the majority of the POIs being the worse-than-bad procgen ones.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2023 04:48
|
|
|
Tankbuster posted:they added more stuff to the fallout 4 combat formula with clambering/mantling jetpacks and combat slides. Shame the latter is kinda useless tho.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2023 05:19
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:idk what they could conceivably do in dlcs that would make this game not suck. everything outside of the cities is completely soulless and the msq is just devoid of pathos. even adding a ton of handmade pois wouldn't do much because you still have the problem with the majority of the POIs being the worse-than-bad procgen ones. what do you mean by soul? I personally found the quirkee stuff in Outer Worlds to be far more soulless than this.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2023 10:14
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:idk what they could conceivably do in dlcs that would make this game not suck. everything outside of the cities is completely soulless and the msq is just devoid of pathos. even adding a ton of handmade pois wouldn't do much because you still have the problem with the majority of the POIs being the worse-than-bad procgen ones. double down and have there be fewer, or no, artifical (human-made or Creator-made) PoIs per randomly-landed area I'm not even joking, really. Pre-release the assumption everyone came into it with was that they'd have 1,000 planets and 995 of those would be basically-empty; I think I would have preferred that to landing on a planet and having either 10 procgen human settlements in spitting distance or 10 alien antigravity monoliths visible from the landing area. Allow for empty spaces to be actually empty and give people a reason to do something there via outpost building. It's like they were flat out terrified that someone might pick a random spot on some planet to land on and not have at least 5 bandit locations to go kill people and loot stuff from, even though if there was an actual achievement for "pick a spot on a planet to land that isn't a pre-marked poi" I'd expect like 10% of people to have it
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2023 11:26
|
|
|
Ursine Catastrophe posted:It's like they were flat out terrified that someone might pick a random spot on some planet to land on and not have at least 5 bandit locations to go kill people and loot stuff from, even though if there was an actual achievement for "pick a spot on a planet to land that isn't a pre-marked poi" I'd expect like 10% of people to have it That's how it feels, like in their previous games there are always a POI or ten in the compass, and they did the same here, but with far too few different things to look at. The explanation for the numerous empty bases was probably in the design from the start, but it doesn't hold much water with the sheer abundance of them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2023 11:58
|
|
|
It is kinda silly that everyone in-game talks about the dangerous nature of deep space, and operating way out on the fringes of the galaxy, far beyond the settled and civilised systems. But when you go there, it's the same research labs and abandoned factories that are everywhere else 
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2023 13:21
|
|
|
The thing that gets me is they could have turned that into a gameplay mechanic on it's own with the lore they have, if they had rolled back the clock 20 years in-game (and in some quests/text it seems like it was originally planned that way?) -- If we were immediately post-colony-war where the factions agreed that "a hardcoded agreement of 4 colonized systems each was pretty loving stupid, actually" and we got kicked into the plot at a point where exploration for the sake of human expansion was part of the Offical reason we're dropping outposts in the first place (and the artifact stuff was the UC/Freestar saying yeah whatever do your crackpot hobby stuff, just as long as you set up colonization stuff first), you could have a reason for anything on the east side of the map being completely unpopulated, a reason for NPCs outside your assigned crew to be showing up at outposts, wandering around, generate some passive gameplay currency in the form of credits or XP or resources, and also at least somewhat explains/removes the "humans pre-player are so stupidly fundamentally incurious that they'll set up a research outpost 10 feet from a giant antigrav anomaly church and not even question it" (you know, like the questioning that people are doing in the text of the game in the final area) Like I'm still playing and having fun with this game because it hits my specific brainworms (with some specific mods), but the sheer breadth of unrealized opportunity from how many systems in the game were working at cross purposes instead of in concert is just impressive the longer you look at it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2023 13:52
|
|
|
Do it kinda like ME3 where you're the one jettisoning the same fuckin cryo lab from space as a space trucker mission
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2023 14:17
|
|
|
Khanstant posted:Space blows. It's the stuff that isn't space that is interesting. Outer Wilds is the only game where space travel is cool and interesting, challenging and fun. And that only worked because it was a teeny verse that shrunk all the miserable vastness of space away. I had a similar thought a week or two back, although I haven't played Outer Wilds yet. But yeah, I think the only way for an open-world space game to work, at least in the BGS style, is to just handwave it and decide that the universe is just really small for some reason. Size it so you can just get in your ship and fly from New Atlantis to Neon within ten minutes of travelling, no hyperdrive, just like you could walk from Whiterun to Riften. And then the map isn't stupid big and the player is actually flying through it instead of fast traveling everywhere, so you can actually have fun preplaced encounters on the way from point A to point B, the equivalent of all the little caves and landmarks that you get sidetracked by in Skyrim or Fallout.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2023 15:46
|
|
|
Phenotype posted:I had a similar thought a week or two back, although I haven't played Outer Wilds yet. But yeah, I think the only way for an open-world space game to work, at least in the BGS style, is to just handwave it and decide that the universe is just really small for some reason. Size it so you can just get in your ship and fly from New Atlantis to Neon within ten minutes of travelling, no hyperdrive, just like you could walk from Whiterun to Riften. From a gameplay perspective this is solved by using jump gates rather than having a jump drive. You basically just have set travel zones people need to physical go to in order to swap maps. From a narrative standpoint it also makes exploration dangerous and exciting if that first jump is one-way until you build a gate (via quests or whatever). Again these are basic genre conventions that were solved literal decades ago.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2023 16:00
|
|
|
The grav drives being basically teleportation with no drawbacks (except that one time) breaks the setting anyway. There’s no travel time, ships are able to basically do it and immediately be combat ready, and max range is basically arbitrary. Why would the UC and Freestar even go to war yet when there’s still worlds full of stuff they can take much cheaper? Even the “three systems per faction” thing makes no sense when travel puts dozens of systems in trivial reach.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2023 16:04
|
|
|
Cyrano is right on the money with this and it's funny to see a bunch of critics sort of implicitly agreeing with the way bethesda clearly saw things by saying "i don't know why they did a space game it's impossible to make space interesting". There's one easy way to make space uninteresting: you make it as empty and as real space; you make the vehicles that traverse it fully reliable and capable of arbitrary motion without limit (i.e. fuel, thrust); and you make it instanced and you travel between instances with teleportation instead of scale. if you vary any of those you get any of a variety of different kinds of game that people like: - keep all the above _but_ you travel by travelling, maybe with some time acceleration, rather than teleportation? you've made a truck sim! - keep all the above _but_ you make vehicles unreliable? you've made space team/tin can! - keep all the above_but_ you limit fuel or thrust? you've made ksp! when it comes to combat, you similarly must do anything but keep all of: small instanced arenas, as empty as real space, scale limited to single seaters+boom and zoom tactics+direct fire weapons, no logistics/sustainment layer. - keep all the above but add logistics/sustainment? you've made space mount and blade/starsector - keep all the above but allow ship scale differences, varying and imaginative ship weapons, ship role differences? you've made nebulous - keep all the above but you put stuff in the arenas to provide cover? you've made a fun dogfighting game (these aren't to my taste so i don't have an example) - keep all the above but you don't make the small instanced arenas? you've made something like x4 combat or children of a dead earth where how, when, and whether you choose to engage or escape is important it's a reverse dayeinu. they made a system that's only bad if you do _all_ that stuff, and they did it all. i think they did it because they just didn't see it coming how hard it would be to design, honestly. they had the logistics and sustainment stuff and abandoned it because they couldn't understand how to make it fun because i think they didn't understand what people find fun about it. i would bet you anything they had ship scale stuff in the game - see the engagement you can get into with the collector's ship in that main quest - and abandoned it i would suspect because they couldn't figure out how to make them not instakill the player given the small arena and perfect accuracy stuff. in short i think the problem was just, well, they didn't have anybody who actually understood how to make a fun space game, and they didn't want to hire anybody who did. i think todd had this aesthetic vision in his head forever like he says and i think he never meshed that with his understanding of how to design games. you only get this mush if there's both a lack of guiding detailed vision and a lack of distributed understanding. like you can have a small studio with strong personalities in the design role and make an auteur game - this is the standard for space games since they're niche - and land with something nice and consistent and good as long as that person is, you know, right. this is "three guys in a hotel on mushrooms writing the book of vivec" bethsoft. you can also have a studio that's too big for that to work but everybody there has a pretty good and meshing understanding of how things are supposed to work, often because they're working in a space that's already pretty well defined - this is fallout 4 and skyrim bethsoft. where you get into trouble is if you're working on something where you don't have institutional experience and knowledge by cultural osmosis but you're too big to have one person controlling things, and the person controlling the things doesn't have a strong design vision. aided and abetted by everybody asking them about everything, the person nominally in charge will look at the forest and go "gently caress that" and head straight for trees and you'll get something where the individual little parts tend to work ok because fundamentally you have smart driven people implementing them, but nothing comes together at all.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2023 16:29
|
|
|
Ursine Catastrophe posted:double down and have there be fewer, or no, artifical (human-made or Creator-made) PoIs per randomly-landed area yeah fewer would honestly be better because currently any situation where you know that it's a 99% chance that it's a procgen poi that you're near is a situation where there's zero point to checking it out. I call the procgen worse than bad because at least if they were badly designed people might still check them out just to see how bad they are. instead it's like unflavored lukewarm oatmeal, why even bother? Tankbuster posted:what do you mean by soul? I personally found the quirkee stuff in Outer Worlds to be far more soulless than this. generally in a game you're trying to minimize the sensation and/or the reality that the player is wandering around an expanse that has been filled with glorified busywork by having a world around them that makes sense, has some internal logic to it, has overarching narrative themes to hold it together, that has some interaction of factions and competing interests, and that has meaningful things to learn about the world etc. starfield's open world has zero reason to exist. exploration is largely pointless because what are you going to discover? you're learning more about the boundaries of the procgen system than about the world. there's no more reason to have a random ship of enemies land on barren field 259250 on generic planet zyw than there is for there to be a refinery facility or abandoned settlement. Worse than just being bland, it's that the world is nonsensical and therefor meaningless everywhere outside of the hand designed parts of the game. every single point in space being similarly populated by a uniform density of the same handful of events is the biggest thing that just shatters the sense of 'maybe I'll come across something unique' Herstory Begins Now fucked around with this message at 16:52 on Dec 29, 2023 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2023 16:41
|
|
|
Ugly In The Morning posted:The grav drives being basically teleportation with no drawbacks (except that one time) breaks the setting anyway. There’s no travel time, ships are able to basically do it and immediately be combat ready, and max range is basically arbitrary. Why would the UC and Freestar even go to war yet when there’s still worlds full of stuff they can take much cheaper? Even the “three systems per faction” thing makes no sense when travel puts dozens of systems in trivial reach.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2023 16:41
|
|
|
Talkie Toaster posted:Right, if you have limitless space and resources your capacity to use them (in population and technology) determines your power. The setting even has sentient AI and the UC has a cloning program, but they’re introduced in wacky side missions and ignored. Why didn’t they fight over e.g. the UC trying to clone a vast population advantage from its stocks of genetic material rescued from Earth? I’m not even sure why Freestar split off so fast, became hostile so fast, and was able to be a credible threat so fast. Nothing about the timescale of this game makes sense. It’s like the opposite of the Bethesda fallout games, where they insist on moving the game year forward but everything feels like it’s fifty years after the bombs fell.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2023 16:57
|
|
|
I'd be fine with the huge procgen galaxy if it had more simulation elements. I don't mind basic or repetitive gameplay if it can have an impact on the larger world or is part of some emergent process. Kenshi, for example, has very basic combat but I had more fun dealing with Holy Nation patrols than anything I've experienced in Starfield. I don't know if that's possible from a technical perspective, I recall scripts being an issue all the way back in Oblivion. And Bethesda doesn't do sims. But I think that's what I find compelling about Starfield even if I think it's aggressively mid. A lot of the poo poo Bethesda designed could work really well in a different game but instead it's in Starfield.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2023 17:01
|
|
|
The whole bit about each side agreeing to limit itself to a handful of colonies feels like one of the writers learned about the Thucydides Trap and was like "pssh, whatever, I could solve that," not realizing it kinda falls apart when you set your game in the infinite expanse of space.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2023 17:07
|
|
|
Phobeste posted:
The really easy reference would be the XWing series of games, and its most recent spiritual successor Star Wars: Squadrons. The Wing Commander series is also old as gently caress and a good reference. This is all on the more arcade-ish end of "sim." For more of a hard sim feel Elite: Dangerous has its pitfalls but is the easy reference. That said, I think moving in the direction of hard core sim would have been a huge mistake for them given their opinions re: accessibility. edit: note that this is all suuuuper basic on the level of someone saying "man I don't know how to make a fun FPS" and saying "well, have you ever played Doom 2 or Half Life?" Cyrano4747 fucked around with this message at 17:35 on Dec 29, 2023 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2023 17:31
|
|
|
Phenotype posted:I had a similar thought a week or two back, although I haven't played Outer Wilds yet. But yeah, I think the only way for an open-world space game to work, at least in the BGS style, is to just handwave it and decide that the universe is just really small for some reason. Size it so you can just get in your ship and fly from New Atlantis to Neon within ten minutes of travelling, no hyperdrive, just like you could walk from Whiterun to Riften. Definitely check out Outer Wilds as unspoiled as you can. One of the best uses of the medium yet. But in mechanical sense it was also just fun to fly the ship around, play with orbits and gravity and all that in a scale that's still fun and not abstract dots on a infographic chart because distances are what they are. And it's funny they didn't do a teenyverse because their games already are. It takes like, what, half an hour to walk across Skyrim map? That's about how far I walk to get to grocery store or a friend's house to play Magic. They've always been making miniature worlds and having a doozy of a time trying to fill up even that much space. I wonder what the closest to a real scale continent a game has made so far is. Or even a tiny island country like the main hunk of UK
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2023 17:43
|
|
|
Daggerfall is real scale and the size of a small country IIRC.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2023 18:10
|
|
|
VostokProgram posted:Daggerfall is real scale and the size of a small country IIRC. I believe it was actually touted as being the same size (in terms of landmass) as the UK, in fact.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2023 18:21
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:The really easy reference would be the XWing series of games, and its most recent spiritual successor Star Wars: Squadrons. The Wing Commander series is also old as gently caress and a good reference. This is all on the more arcade-ish end of "sim." For more of a hard sim feel Elite: Dangerous has its pitfalls but is the easy reference. That said, I think moving in the direction of hard core sim would have been a huge mistake for them given their opinions re: accessibility. And honestly, it wouldn't exactly be hard to crib ideas from Freelancer either, you know, a well known open world space-arcade game that hasn't been touched in 15 years. Hell just stealing the map/route system that game had to track down lost ships and/or find hidden pirate bases would have done wonders to make the space gameplay more interesting. E: Whoever said they made a space game without ever playing a space game before was right on the money.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2023 19:21
|
|
|
fat bossy gerbil posted:The thing that really gets me is they picked the least interesting and, most importantly, least useful parts of other science fiction to copy. They just had to have warp drive so they could brag about how big their game is. No you idiots. Do it like The Expanse instead. Humanity had to make an exodus from a dying Earth. They sent a sublight ship to Alpha Centauri and colonized the system but oh? What’s this? A few alien ring gates? But only one of them works? And it takes us to another system with more of these gates, also mostly broken. We spread out via these gates until we couldn’t anymore. How do we fix them? There’s a whole galaxy out there if only we could make these things work again. That’s what constellation is trying to do. Go look at the X games by Egosoft, because you described them a bit, with the stargates in space.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2023 19:38
|
|
|
Space in Starfield is just a pre-loading screen for planets. e: but yes, the space sim/shooter genre has been hanging on life support in the space between Freespace 2 and Elite Dangerous but in the history of video games there are a range of options that have been tried and tested for what works and is fun and what isn't.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2023 19:39
|
|
|
Back Hack posted:And honestly, it wouldn't exactly be hard to crib ideas from Freelancer either, you know, a well known open world space-arcade game that hasn't been touched in 15 years. Hell just stealing the map/route system that game had to track down lost ships and/or find hidden pirate bases would have done wonders to make the space gameplay more interesting. I mentioned exactly that here a day or two because it’s so obvious as a casual, approachable space sim that would meld into the Bethesda exploration thing perfectly. The fact that they didn’t get even close to a twenty year old game is a “I award you no points, and may god have mercy on your soul” situation. Also Everspace 2 finally got the Freelancer thing, you should try that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2023 19:58
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:From a gameplay perspective this is solved by using jump gates rather than having a jump drive. You basically just have set travel zones people need to physical go to in order to swap maps. But from the point of view of a Bethesda-type game, you end up with the same thing Starfield does -- you can have stuff happen when you're already next to a planet (or outside a gate) but there's still no sense of traveling around and exploring interesting things that you find along the way. It feels like you're creating a new Place Where Interesting Things Can Happen rather than making that same kind of Fallout-style exploration possible. It's a solution for certain types of games but not the same open world stuff we expect from a Bethesda game. Just create a tiny little universe and pretend spaceships can travel from one end to another within a half hour, and then you don't have to lean on pointless procgen abandoned installations -- you've got a reasonably-sized, discrete "space" to fill with properly-designed quests and points-of-interest that we can accidentally happen upon while traveling from one place to another. I guess that's really not asking for much in the way of innovation from Bethesda, but that feels one of the biggest failures of the game -- the way it fails to even give us the same pleasure in exploration as their earlier games did. Even if the game failed at everything else, I'd still think better of it if they gave us the equivalent of roaming the wasteland.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2023 20:11
|
|
|
Phobeste posted:- keep all the above but you put stuff in the arenas to provide cover? you've made a fun dogfighting game (these aren't to my taste so i don't have an example) The funny thing is they were incredibly close to having this in certain specific situations, except asteroids break apart if you spit at them and I'm pretty sure they just don't exist to the AI, so they'll just shoot you directly through the rocks immediately if you try to use them as cover whoops
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2023 20:15
|
|
|
Phenotype posted:But from the point of view of a Bethesda-type game, you end up with the same thing Starfield does -- you can have stuff happen when you're already next to a planet (or outside a gate) but there's still no sense of traveling around and exploring interesting things that you find along the way. Sure you can. It's the way that every game that uses that basic design idea works. You don't put the gate on top of the planet, you put the gate off away from the planet with interesting poo poo in between. Stations and asteroid fields and pirate bases and wrecked fleets to salvage an whatever other poo poo you want to fill it with.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2023 20:28
|
|
|
The reason they are not using stargets space highways and what have you because the entire premise of the game is supposed to be about exploring unexplored planets and going anywhere landing anywhere. If you would limit the places you can go suddenly it would limit the exploration. Now you could say that space is already limited to the visitable systems there are out there, it's not Elite Dangerous with millions of stars with who knows how many systems inbetween settled areas. The whole constant flying bit would only work if the world would be miniturized but that only worked in Outer Wilds and for that game the entire setting is just insane, Freelancer just handwaves it away and hopes you really don't think about why planets are the size of a bigger spaceship. The way it would work if you would had to jump between points within systems and maybe even had to go to the edge or to jump points if you want to go other systems, it wouldn't be technically continuous but it would give a better feeling of travel.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2023 20:32
|
|
|
The exploration is currently limited by me not giving a single poo poo about exploring. Looking at a proc gen land scape hasn't been interesting since Minecraft stopped being a novel freeware alpha, so any time I was in orbit around a Planet in Starfield I would never, ever click a random spot on the surface. In all seriousness, I landed once on Vectera, a couple of times on Jemisen, a couple times on the moon and on earth, all within the first 10 hours of playing the game, and that's when I realized there was no point to any of it. Creating what is effectively a contiguous open world by having asteroid belts, derelict ships, space stations and planets all form a single cohesive area you could fly to without fast travel wouldn't eliminate the premise of the game, it would fulfil it. Edit: Oh I landed several more times in random places just because I wanted to set up resource extraction, but it was just as boring and disappointing as the earlier times so I memory holed the whole thing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2023 20:38
|
|
|
Jack B Nimble posted:
At one point I spent a solid chunk of a day's play time on a weekend looking up what planets had what resources and setting up a chain of outposts to mine the most important minerals so I could funnel everything towards a main base. Figured out the clusterfuck of how the system-to-system spaceships work (what the gently caress do you mean each one needs its own landing pad what the christ?  ), figured out the best combo to do what I needed to do right now, got it all tricking forward so I would have resources accumulating to build out my main base.Then I had to figure out and un-gently caress the bizarre storage system they set up. Why there's not just one central repository for all your crap in a base is beyond me. Going in I figured it would end up being like the FO4 settlement networks, where you grow a bunch of plants in one place to make starch that you turn into poo poo at another place, and you just link their storages via the magic of supply trains. Anyways after doing that for a while I needed like two colbalt or something so I went to a store, realized I could buy more random minerals at the supply shop right off the New Atlantis spaceport than I could ever need, then fast traveled to Mars and realized they also had a ton, then went to cowboy town, then I went back to my main base and dumped all that poo poo off and could have built whatever I wanted to and logged off for like three months because meh why loving bother. I was pretty ready to dig into some base building and space logistics and man they undercut that so badly I didn't even want to bother.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2023 20:47
|
|
|
i did the giant daisy chain of bases and after I was done I was like, whelp, im done I guess and haven't loaded the game since it was a giant pain in the rear end and it still was less efficient than going to three places on new atlantis oh, and the only reason I wanted to do the daisy chain was that the interstellar transports to do daisy chains required he3 moist turtleneck fucked around with this message at 21:09 on Dec 29, 2023 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2023 21:06
|
|
|
Bholder posted:The reason they are not using stargets space highways and what have you because the entire premise of the game is supposed to be about exploring unexplored planets and going anywhere landing anywhere. If you would limit the places you can go suddenly it would limit the exploration. Now you could say that space is already limited to the visitable systems there are out there, it's not Elite Dangerous with millions of stars with who knows how many systems inbetween settled areas. The whole constant flying bit would only work if the world would be miniturized but that only worked in Outer Wilds and for that game the entire setting is just insane, Freelancer just handwaves it away and hopes you really don't think about why planets are the size of a bigger spaceship. A huge chunk of the game is designing and building your own personal spaceship, without anything to actually do in that spaceship the whole process is just putting lego together.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2023 21:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 14:01 |
|
|
Alchenar posted:A huge chunk of the game is designing and building your own personal spaceship, without anything to actually do in that spaceship the whole process is just putting lego together. They based it on the best space game out there: Kingdom Hearts
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2023 21:12
|
|