Great perspective! If it were not for you and a some other youtubers I probably would not watch youtube :) I hope people with your balanced views will just keep growing. Keep up the good work! And btw loading times can be good. You can relax, drink some tea or eat snacks for a few seconds + there might be info on the loadscreens, like in fallout for example.
1 month ago (edited)
| 1
Funny how nobody ever brings up Red Dead Redemption 2. That game, while a masterpiece, has the longest load screens. At this point I think people complain just to complain.
1 month ago
| 7
I firmly believe that tribalist online commentary has sent games to the grave that never deserved it. Not that they were without flaws that deserved criticism, but that algorithms and proples bad faith takes pumped out content that promoted the ganging up on games that just ruined their chances long term in one way or another. For example Mass Effect Andromeda.
1 month ago | 10
Starfield is also a much bigger game. Naturally you'd have way more loading screens in a game that simulates 1000 entire planets than the 15² miles from Fallout 4.
1 month ago | 0
the problem is not the loading screens themselves, but the type of game and the scenes they come it. If i have a loading screen inbetween two chapters of a story and the next "level" or "world" is loading in, that's common practice and totally fine. Nobody will complain about that. But if you have an open world game any interruption during a transition between scenes can break the immersion. So during development of a game this needs to be considered and the technique build for that specific type of game should minimize the loading screens as much as possible. You can't avoid them all though. In No Man's Sky any new system you warp to needs to be calculated and that's why you see only the warp animation during that process. I would not consider the short black screens while leaving a ship or entering a corvette a "loading screen", since they usually take less than a second and are not interrupting the gameplay at this point. However, NMS was build from the ground up to work exactly like that, while Starfield uses an old engine that was simply not designed to work for transitioning between very different complex scenes. Bethestas had to balance the gameplay and the amount of loading screens to get as much of a seamless experience as possible. I don't think the loading screens in Starfield make it a bad game at all, it's just something that may not be that important for some players as for others. The same applies for No Man's Sky. The graphics are far from realistic and the NPCs really look like taken from a comic book. They also do not have any personality at all. The planets could be considered as generic due to the repetition of flora, faune and buildings. Is it bad, because of that ? No, of course not. It's just a different concept and some players enjoy this, others don't. I do think Bethesta will push their new Starfield IP for a long time. There is a ton of potential here, like it was and still is in No Man's Sky. People will also buy DLCs with new content, so hopefully the investment will be worth it.
1 month ago (edited) | 2
And we all know thoss sorts of conplainers will never care about the actual statistics, modern gamers have been coddled so much that they spend all of their time finding youtubers who will validate their opinions and just ignore statistical objective realities.
1 month ago | 0
Yeah, it wouldn't surprise me if they could cut some loading screens in Starfield, but I expect that the amount of havoc (physics affected) and interactive elements in the game makes a fair amount of separation desirable. Add to that the fact that your game save tracks the location of every one of those items, and you have something that gives you a lot of freedom (like decorating your outpost with found items), but also comes with limitations (save file bloat as an example)
1 month ago | 1
I think what some players are getting at is that with Starfield being a modern release, they expected Bethesda to move away from the older loading screen tech used in Oblivion, Skyrim, and Fallout 4. Games today often use background loading, streaming textures, or other methods to make transitions feel smoother, so it’s not really that people don’t understand Bethesda’s history—it’s that they hoped Starfield would evolve past that approach. But yeah all games use loading screen technology just in different ways!
1 month ago | 1
Most loading screens are as fast as the door opening animations. And the warp animations between planets are 3-5 seconds at most...so I don't really understand the complaints. I'm guessing it's a console thing? My p.c. is almost 8 years old, so it's not like I'm running a blazing fast computer.
1 month ago | 0
I love the people who think they are winning by saying "You click a destination on the map - load screen - then you click on the planet - load screen - then exit your ship - load screen - then enter a building - load screen - then exit the building - load screen" etc. They must be people who play games in the most basic miserable way possible, my first thought is always "what about all the stuff you do in between?". You reach a planet, do you engage with the space encounter there, have a battle, talk to the random NPC ship or do you just land? Do you just run to a door, run in and run out again? Starting on one planet, going to another, going to a POI, entering it clearing it/whatever and exiting again can take me an hour. More if I get sidetracked and stop at other systems/planets/encounters along the way.
1 month ago
| 4
lol the rose colored goggles are thick on the Skyrim and oblivion. There we so many load screens in those.
1 month ago
| 1
This sounds like a hold my beer situation… lol like challenge accepted
1 month ago
| 2
There are four loading screens in the Chorrol Mages Guild alone (Entrance, second floor, third floor, basement). And this is not a large building either. To make matters worse, the interior doors come with their own confirmation pop-upa. The game stops in its tracks until we click Continue on these pointless messages. Oblivion is LOADED with loading screens, (pun intended).
1 month ago (edited)
| 1
The subscribers you will loose with these rage bait attempts will be more than the idiots who will come to argue with you
1 month ago | 5
Renfail
"But Renfail, Skyrim and Oblivion don't have as many loading screens as Starfield". Ooooh boy, you really want to go there? Fine. I'm reinstalling Oblivion: Remastered now. Direct comparison video coming soon. Don't worry. I'll do the math for you :)
(waiting for the moving of the goalpost to: yeah but those are older games and OF COURSE they have loading screens. It's just that Bethesda should have done BETTER with Starfield and changed their technology/way of making games. Nope, that's not how this works. If you find them immersion-breaking in Starfield, then you are NOT ALLOWED to praise Oblivion and Skyrim or Fallout 4 as these MASTERFUL GAMES THAT CAN DO NO WRONG without ALSO taking into account their use of the SAME tech, loading screens).
Stay tuned. We'll be starting with the Imperial City versus New Atlantis and compare the amount of loading screens directly :)
1 month ago (edited) | [YT] | 102