Seems kind of like the game is just suffering from reactionaries, but I definitely don’t put that much stock in critic reviews these days either.

  • CharlestonChewbacca@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    You don’t need to do all that stuff though. Use your missions tab and the map to travel directly where you need to go.

    It’s a massive open world game, there are going to be loading screens. But you can limit them by fast traveling directly.

    • Kachilde@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      So your suggestion is to not play the open-world part of the open-world game?

    • Ech@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      You’re right that the loading screens can be minimized with fast travel, but also, some of the best parts of a game like this is the immersion, which doesn’t really work well with loading directly from point to point on your to-do list. I think Starfield is fine, tbh, but I do agree that the amount of loading screens is excessive. Games like NMS and Elite Dangerous have been doing seamless space travel for a long time now. There’s really no excuse.

      • amio@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        The excuse is the engine they refuse to let die. It’s not a good excuse, but that’s a lot of the trademark Bethesda wonk.

        • Ech@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yeah, that tracks. I get that as a company, they’re gonna wring every resource dry before ponying up the money to redevelop, but that engine’s been showing its age for a while now, and Starfield is a great concept that deserved better.