I would agree with you if Bethesda games haven't always been saved by modders, rather than Beth themselves. If we had to depend on Beth to fix their own game, Skyrim would've been abandoned long, long, long ago, same with Fallout 4.

[–] jdf038@mander.xyz 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That's true and what worries me the most after wanting Starfield to do good. I've been playing Starfield for a bit only to find myself moving to Cyberpunk sooner than later lately.

[–] Cowbee@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No harm in waiting for Starfield! It will only get better, while Cyberpunk is largely complete. I loved cyberpunk, especially the DLC.

[–] jdf038@mander.xyz 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I hope it does and I think it will but again with the reliance Bethesda puts on the community I'm nervous.

Anyway I've gotten much of the way through at 100 hours and have enjoyed it - definitely got my money's worth - but I just sort of hit a wall. To be fair you'll do that with most games but it seems like Stanfield is just bland.

[–] Cowbee@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

We'll certainly see! I trust modders.

[–] Mnemnosyne@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah, Bethesda games have always been... playable, I guess, but hardly any good, without modding, at least as far back as Oblivion. Morrowind was the last game they made that was just good, out of the box, without needing mods.

So I figured in a year or two Starfield will be good, with mods, just like Oblivion, Skyrim, and Fallout 4 were all bland at best on release, until mods made them good.

[–] Cowbee@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago

100% I actually think Starfield has the best bones, even if it has the worst meat, so to speak, so adding meat gives it a much higher ceiling in a few years time.