Bethesda's Starfield First Gameplay Reveal Video

[ShneekeyTheLost]

The only definition by which Rage 2 and RPG belong in the same sentence is that one of the weapons is a rocket launcher. It's a shooter with an upgrade path like every other open world game, most of which is completely optional because the impact of much of it is super low (and the AI isn't all that impressive, they run around in the open a lot and plenty of them are just melee psychos, its AI is basically bog standard shooter AI for the last 20 years or so).

By what metric would you call FO4 an RPG that would exclude Rage 2? Your description could apply to either one.

[Rynjin]

As for RPGs with good AI it depends on your definition I suppose. If you're like Warty and believe that bad AI and bad shooting are mandatory for the game to be an RPG then examples are rare. I don't personally believe that so here's my non-comprehensive list of shooting games with heavy rpg elements that do it better than Bethesda.

Destiny, Mass Effect 2+3, Deus ex, Outer worlds, Dishonored 1+2.

To be clear, I'm not saying all these games have good AI. I'm saying it's better than what Bethesda does.

So two of those (Dishonored 1/2) are stealth games...with not particularly good AI, really. They're good at locking onto your presence but not much else. Deus Ex's AI is similar. Very cheeseable just by ducking back and forth into cover because their view cones are limited due to stealth elements. If you know where to go you can literally stroll right past enemies without them noticing.

Outer Worlds AI is essentially identical to Bethesda AI.

Destiny AI is definitely better, though again as a mostly linear (yes, yes, there's open world elements and those are where the AI is at its dumbest) shooter it kind of has to be.

Mass Effect 2/3 I haven't played recently enough to have an opinion on. I remember the NPCs would take cover and...that's about it, I guess.

None of these games (except maybe Destiny, though that game is so mind-numbingly boring I have a hard time remembering anything about it) have notably good combat AI, is the point here.

They're not something like FEAR, which was modeled from the ground up to have enemies that (seemed to) react to your every action (though in reality that was not true AI, but very careful scripting of rooms).

AI is, shockingly, not very good. Universally. Across the industry. Across ANY industry. All of the games with the "best AI" take the FEAR approach, with carefully scripted encounters that FEEL dynamic but actually aren't. That's what "good AI" usually is.

Unfortunately, open world gameplay kind of precludes that. It's an inherent weakness of the genre.

[Anteros]

Ok, but again...I'm not asking for an AI that can outsmart me. I fully understand that it's hard to program something that advanced. I'm asking for one that's smart enough to crouch on the side of the sandbag without the bullets.

Or one that reacts to me putting a sniper round in its head in a different manner than standing up for 3 seconds, spinning in a circle, and then placing its head in the exact same position where it originally got shot so I didn't even have to move my crosshairs.

Or one that reacts to me killing its best friend and then ducking behind a bush for 3 seconds in a different manner than "huh, must have been the wind..."

This is the level of AI that Bethesda has given us. They're not even at the bare minimum of industry standards. These things were ridiculous but somewhat acceptable 15 years ago when Fallout 3 came out. They're not anymore.

[Vinyadan]

They're not something like FEAR, which was modeled from the ground up to have enemies that (seemed to) react to your every action (though in reality that was not true AI, but very careful scripting of rooms).

AI is, shockingly, not very good. Universally. Across the industry. Across ANY industry. All of the games with the "best AI" take the FEAR approach, with carefully scripted encounters that FEEL dynamic but actually aren't. That's what "good AI" usually is.

This is a somewhat ambivalent definition. FEAR AI was dynamic, in that it had different objectives and switched among them based on situation. I have never done that myself, but it's possible to open the code and see how it works, there are 3 main statuses (move, play an animation , use smart object ) and almost 70 goals and 120 actions to choose from to reach those goals by planning. There are a few videos about this on youtube.

It also had many scripted scenes, like surprising the player by entering the room in an unforeseen manner. The story characters also were completely scripted.

Finally, the levels were designed to allow the AI an unusual amount of freedom when approaching the player, as they rarely were just a corridor and more frequently the player had to be prepared to difend himself on two sides.

I am not sure about FEAR, but STALKER used a similar system and required the maps to be filled with predetermined paths and cover points for the AI to choose from, so I wouldn't be surprised if that was the case for FEAR, too. A strategy game like Supreme Commander was like that too, the AI just can't read the maps or the environment as we do. A recent mod that massively improves the SC ai is really all about giving new markers on the maps for the AI to read.

[GloatingSwine]

By what metric would you call FO4 an RPG that would exclude Rage 2? Your description could apply to either one.

For all its faults as a way to express a character (Yes, No, or Sarcastic, all three personalities!), Fallout 4 is still more of a game about exploring and engaging with its world and people and things in it than Rage 2, where you engage with the world by punching pink boxes and shooting everything else in case it makes an explosion happen. (Sometimes the explosion is their head!)

[ShneekeyTheLost]

For all its faults as a way to express a character (Yes, No, or Sarcastic, all three personalities!), Fallout 4 is still more of a game about exploring and engaging with its world and people and things in it than Rage 2, where you engage with the world by punching pink boxes and shooting everything else in case it makes an explosion happen. (Sometimes the explosion is their head!)

I'd actually disagree with that. Fallout 4's core game cycle is 'go here -> kill stuff -> loot' which is exactly what Rage 2 does.

Specifically, I'll ask you: When was the last time you went somewhere and actually talked to an NPC outside of a quest or city?

The problem of your interaction being 'Yes', 'Sarcastic Yes', 'Greedy Yes', and 'Maybe Later' (you're never given a 'No' option) is that this happens within what are allegedly scripted quests. But instead of actually having quest interactions that are flexible, they just reused the same default script for 90+% of their quest dialogue. If you're just randomly walking somewhere, the only talking you are going to do is with your weapons. Instead of punching lootboxes, you're looting them, which is zero difference.

[Rynjin]

I'd say that what happens in between combats IS what defines an RPG over an action game. If you really boil it down there's little difference in gameplay between Dragon Age and the early Diablo games, but the way the story is presented and your ability to act on it and react to it is what makes the former a true RPG.

Similarly, the shooting may be similar (the mechanics were both made by ID after all), but Fallout has infinitely more RPG in its DNA than Rage.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

I'd say that what happens in between combats IS what defines an RPG over an action game. If you really boil it down there's little difference in gameplay between Dragon Age and the early Diablo games, but the way the story is presented and your ability to act on it and react to it is what makes the former a true RPG.

Similarly, the shooting may be similar (the mechanics were both made by ID after all), but Fallout has infinitely more RPG in its DNA than Rage.

What exactly happens in FO4 between combats other getting directed to the next combat scene?

It has a weaker main plot than Rage 2, less coherent, and doesn't really give more exploration venues since everything is so similar anyway. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that Rage 2 has superior exploration because everywhere you go has something relevant to do, and gives you vehicles for traversal.

[veti]

What exactly happens in FO4 between combats other getting directed to the next combat scene? .

Settlement building, collecting tat, crafting, sneaking, exploring?

Don't get me wrong, I only ever played about 15 hours of FO4 before rage-uninstalling it. Terrible game. But to claim it's nothing but combat is ridiculous.

[Rynjin]

What exactly happens in FO4 between combats other getting directed to the next combat scene?

It has a weaker main plot than Rage 2, less coherent, and doesn't really give more exploration venues since everything is so similar anyway. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that Rage 2 has superior exploration because everywhere you go has something relevant to do, and gives you vehicles for traversal.

There's quite a bit of good dialogue and RP...on a first playthrough. The issue with FO4 is the lack of variance/replayability, not a complete lack of RP opportunities.

[Anteros]

Settlement building, collecting tat, crafting, sneaking, exploring?

Don't get me wrong, I only ever played about 15 hours of FO4 before rage-uninstalling it. Terrible game. But to claim it's nothing but combat is ridiculous.

They're all pretty bareboned mechanics. I would imagine that you can do things like explore, sneak, etc in Rage as well...as well as almost any other game. Never played it so idk if there's a crafting system. None of those things are really components of what I personally consider an RPG anyway though.

There's quite a bit of good dialogue and RP...on a first playthrough. The issue with FO4 is the lack of variance/replayability, not a complete lack of RP opportunities.

Don't really see how there's a lot of opportunity for RP when they took all of the dialogue options and decision making away from the player.

I mean, it's a sandbox game so you can do anything you want with it...but you could say the same about something like Subnautica or minecraft. In my opinion, the only thing vaguely rpg-like about the Fallout games is the leveling system.

[Erloas]

I would say many action games have taken on a lot of RPG elements, and a lot of RPG games have taken on a lot of action game elements, to the point where there isn't much of a distinction between them any more. I would say very few big budget RPGs are true RPGs any more, they're all the action-RPGs, with the action part coming first. (I can't think of any, but I'm not following the industry that closely anymore)

I'm not saying that is a good or bad thing, just that it is a thing.

So my biggest problem with Bethesda games has been (and I'll freely admit I haven't even tried their newest games because I was so disappointed in the ones I did play) that they feel like they should be action-RPG games but have very poor action. And that their story didn't make up for the slog of gameplay because their stories (as far I got into them) never really felt compelling or anything surprising or different.

I'm hoping that Microsoft's acquisition forced them to make some changes to their "standard" design.

[veti]

I would say many action games have taken on a lot of RPG elements, and a lot of RPG games have taken on a lot of action game elements, to the point where there isn't much of a distinction between them any more. I would say very few big budget RPGs are true RPGs any more, they're all the action-RPGs, with the action part coming first. (I can't think of any, but I'm not following the industry that closely anymore

What would you consider a "true RPG"? Personally I've always thought that there is no such thing as a "true RPG" on a computer, because of the inherently limited scope of things you can do/places and ways you can interact with the world, and the only thing that could change that would be the advent of a much more intelligent kind of cyber-DM. But I'm curious what others would classify as that.

[Triaxx]

True RPG: Altering something has an actual effect on my character. Oblivion was the last game that was true for in Vanilla from Bethesda, or Fallout 3 on that side of things. After that it devolved entirely to player skill.

[Erloas]

I would say that the biggest part is player skill vs character skill and more options to get through parts of the game besides combat.

It's just very hard to have an FPS style game where the player skill isn't a huge factor in how well combat goes. And the whole "you're not specced in this gun so it's bullets don't hurt as much" does more to ruin the believability of the setting than it does to reinforce character skill. Not that Bethesda games don't do a decent job at tying in character skill into progression and what you can handle, but it's not really any different than action games have been doing for a long time.
As well as the use of minigames for skill checks, where for the most part character skill almost only changes whether or not you even get to try the minigame and for the most part the mini-game is unchanged based on character skill.

I think games like Wastelands did a much better job at both aspects. Shadowrun did a good job at character skill in combat, and there are a fair number of options on how to do certain things, even if most encounters skill need to be done via combat, at least the non-combat skills leading up to that point make a big difference in how easy or hard they are.

Disco Elysium is almost entirely character skill driven with many different ways to do almost everything.

As a few examples

[Mechalich]

With regard to player skill versus character skill in Fallout, specifically, it's important to remember that VATS exists. Properly built VATS-based characters don't aim. They just turn to the general direction of their opponents, press V, and then unleash a hail of headshots with a 95% chance to hit while their enemies explode. It's all character skill. I know many players like to ignore VATS, but it is absolutely there.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Circling back to Starfield... I do like the retro-future aesthetic of their computer GUI. It feels like something out of the Alien franchise, which is cool. That alone would probably carry me like... maybe ten hours of gameplay before it gets old?

Part of the problem, I feel, is that they're running into the classic problem of 'trying to do everything, resulting in half-arsing it all and delivering a lousy product'. You've got a crappy shooter, a crappy space combat sim, and a crappy ARPG thrown into a blender. That doesn't make a good product, it makes multiple lousy experiences all strung together.

[Psyren]

Mass Effect 2/3 I haven't played recently enough to have an opinion on. I remember the NPCs would take cover and...that's about it, I guess.

Their AI is pretty dumb but they also cheat, so fights get pretty harrowing. They're programmed to flank you and flush you out of cover (especially in 3) and you take massively more damage once they've done so, plus they have a huge numerical advantage to make sure they can do so regularly. Their defenses also essentially make them immune to your own abilities until you strip them away. And that's before you get to the enemies that can OHK/sync you just by getting to melee range.

Personally I think that's the secret, you don't need amazing AI if the enemies have numbers, powers and defenses that give them an edge over you.

It's also softened by the fact that the game cheats in your favor in some ways too. For example, when you're extremely low on life, you actually have more health than you think you do and that leads to very nailbiting moments where you feel like you slid back into cover right in the nick of time.

Part of the problem, I feel, is that they're running into the classic problem of 'trying to do everything, resulting in half-arsing it all and delivering a lousy product'. You've got a crappy shooter, a crappy space combat sim, and a crappy ARPG thrown into a blender. That doesn't make a good product, it makes multiple lousy experiences all strung together.

And then spread paper thin across a thousand planets, so you know almost none of them will actually matter.

It's pretty but it looks like I'll be holding out for ME4, provided EAware doesn't sink the franchise.

[Eldan]

Yeah, I fully expect most of the planets to be the equivalent of Radiant quests in Skyrim. They are going to have some randomly generated pirate nests and alien monsters and mostly empty landscape otherwise.

[Lord Raziere]

Yeah, I fully expect most of the planets to be the equivalent of Radiant quests in Skyrim. They are going to have some randomly generated pirate nests and alien monsters and mostly empty landscape otherwise.

Yeah all of this is sounding like what I do on Starbound but 3D, which I got into because modded starbound, is more interesting to me than No Man's Sky. and sure it has radiant quests and such....but for some reason, for a 2D indie game? I'm okay with that.

Starfield has to compete with that in my mind: what experience can it give me that I can't get just playing modded Starbound? in Starbound I can go to some random planet to like, have an adventure in a bizarre environment, that at times can be alien or even surreal. what is Starfield going to have? ice? desert? jungle? ocean full of boring ol' water? space stations of square corridors? something else dull drab and grey? give us environments that can kill us just for stepping foot in them unprepared, give us oceans of acid we need special suits to dive into, give us an alien planet full of nothing but mushrooms and animals being puppeted by them and make it possible for me to play as one of the fungus puppetting a human for my alien ends, give me a planet full of advanced technology that look nothing like modern human ipods or minimalist aesthetic and instead go fancy and baroque and not designed for humans, give me skies and plants that result from a red or blue sun, do something even if its just a spectacle. make going into space a journey beyond expectation and civilization into stranger skies to land on stranger shores. don't give me Earth away from Earth stuff, give me a universe beyond human context.

[Eldan]

There's actually a few environments that look quite pretty in one of the trailers, that you see for about half a second each. So there's still hope there. The question is going to be if there are going to be a handful of handmade story-relevant planets with interesting environments, or if there are some unusual biomes scattered through the general planet populations.

[Triaxx]

General, another planet needs your help.

[Vinyadan]

I wonder if they thought of diversifying gravity and atmospheric density.

[Kareeah_Indaga]

I wonder if they thought of diversifying gravity and atmospheric density.

At least one gas giant or ocean planet would be cool. Something with crazy tides from multiple moons. Something with multiple suns?

[Mutazoia]

Meh. It looks like someone is trying to beat Star Citizen/Squadron 46 at its (their) own game and not really doing it.

[Rynjin]

Meh. It looks like someone is trying to beat Star Citizen/Squadron 46 at its (their) own game and not really doing it.

Starfield and Star Citizen aren't trying to be anything close to the same thing, though. Star Citizen's "game" is to milk every sucker for every penny they're worth until there are none left.

I'm not entirely sure why the Cult of Star Citizen has had such a resurgence recently, but it's very odd to me given how obvious of a scam it is and how well-documented the project's missteps are.

[Anteros]

Isn't Star Citizen the game that keeps promising the entire universe, charging their players ridiculous amounts of money for ships and such, and then never actually delivering content? It's my understanding that they're widely accepted to be a scam/joke. I don't think it would take much to beat them at their game. Just deliver an actual game.

At least one gas giant or ocean planet would be cool. Something with crazy tides from multiple moons. Something with multiple suns?

An ocean planet would be great. If they can deliver 1/10th of the atmosphere that subnautica did I'd be impressed.

[Mutazoia]

Starfield and Star Citizen aren't trying to be anything close to the same thing, though. Star Citizen's "game" is to milk every sucker for every penny they're worth until there are none left.

I'm not entirely sure why the Cult of Star Citizen has had such a resurgence recently, but it's very odd to me given how obvious of a scam it is and how well-documented the project's missteps are.

Isn't Star Citizen the game that keeps promising the entire universe, charging their players ridiculous amounts of money for ships and such, and then never actually delivering content? It's my understanding that they're widely accepted to be a scam/joke. I don't think it would take much to beat them at their game. Just deliver an actual game.

Star Citizen's biggest problem is that the creator has this grand idea in mind and has hired many coders who have never worked on a game before this point. Roberts kees wanting to add to the game and has a lot of teams doing a lot of different projects, as well as working on the stand-alone game "Squadron 42". Roberts needs to scale back a bit and be a little less ambitious. They ARE working on delivering Squadron 42 before going back to work on Star Citizen (as most of what is developed for S42 will be compatible with, and ported directly into SC)

As for the cost, it's not a pay-to-play or subscription game, and you can easily "buy in" for $45, which is a lot less than your average game with a cost of around $60 and up. Hardly ridiculous. Sure, you can buy other ships at higher costs if you like, but you don't have to. But at the moment, that's how they are funding the project(s) since they don't have any residual income from any other projects. This is CIG and RSI's first project.

[Mutazoia]

Starfield and Star Citizen aren't trying to be anything close to the same thing, though. Star Citizen's "game" is to milk every sucker for every penny they're worth until there are none left.

I'm not entirely sure why the Cult of Star Citizen has had such a resurgence recently, but it's very odd to me given how obvious of a scam it is and how well-documented the project's missteps are.

Isn't Star Citizen the game that keeps promising the entire universe, charging their players ridiculous amounts of money for ships and such, and then never actually delivering content? It's my understanding that they're widely accepted to be a scam/joke. I don't think it would take much to beat them at their game. Just deliver an actual game.

Star Citizen's biggest problem is that the creator has this grand idea in mind and has hired many coders who have never worked on a game before this point. Roberts kees wanting to add to the game and has a lot of teams doing a lot of different projects, as well as working on the stand-alone game "Squadron 42". Roberts needs to scale back a bit and be a little less ambitious. They ARE working on delivering Squadron 42 before going back to work on Star Citizen (as most of what is developed for S42 will be compatible with, and ported directly into SC)

As for the cost, it's not a pay-to-play or subscription game, and you can easily "buy in" for $45, which is a lot less than your average game with a cost of around $60 and up. Hardly ridiculous. Sure, you can buy other ships at higher costs if you like, but you don't have to. But at the moment, that's how they are funding the project(s) since they don't have residual income from any other projects.

Most of what Starfield has seems to have been lifted straight out of Star Citizen: An open world (galaxy) FPS/Flight sim MMO. Their developers had people who have actual experience creating games, started with more resources (hardware and the like), and didn't have Roberts constantly adding things to the pile of things to do. (If you weren't aware, Roberts is the creative mind behind the old "Freelancer" game, and Star Citizen is what he envisioned "Freelancer" to be all along. He was kicked off of the project because he couldn't stop adding things lol.)

[GloatingSwine]

Most of what Starfield has seems to have been lifted straight out of Star Citizen: An open world (galaxy) FPS/Flight sim MMO. Their developers had people who have actual experience creating games, started with more resources (hardware and the like), and didn't have Roberts constantly adding things to the pile of things to do. (If you weren't aware, Roberts is the creative mind behind the old "Freelancer" game, and Star Citizen is what he envisioned "Freelancer" to be all along. He was kicked off of the project because he couldn't stop adding things lol.)

Nah, Starfield is just Mass Effect but you can fly the spaceship. Star Citizen is far from a monopoly on this concept, "space game where you can do everything else as well" has been the dream of the well meaning but misguided for several decades at this point.

(Star Citizen itself has yet to reveal its true biggest problem, which is that its overly fiddly simulationist approach to everything is going to make it an extremely niche game forever.)