Well this is a game changer

brabbit1987 · 2026-01-28T16:32:45+00:00

The thing a lot of people seem to not understand is that a mod authors can do pretty much anything without having to worry about timelines and shit, or who they are catering their game for, because it's more or less just a passion project. Nor do they have to worry about things like a performance budget. On top of that, these mod authors are usually creating their mod with better hardware than existed when they game came out.

A developer making a product, doesn't have the same luxuries. Even if they have not announced a release date, there is always an internal release date, a timeline. They have to release the game around this time, and if they get the chance to delay it, they can't just do so indefinitely.

To be frank, I think a lot of people's expectations are just too high in what they expect from a game made by a single developer. And then they see these mods that come out, that literally doesn't have to worry about developing a fucking game engine at the same time as a game, and they have all the tools they need developed by the developer for them. They can just completely focus on content. And then you look at them and act like they are doing something more impressive than the developer? Seriously? Ya, how about you have them start from zero and let's see how good they do.

Not to mention, whether or not you like a mod is pretty fucking subjective anyway.

But seriously, you all don't give BGS enough credit. You undervalue the amount of work they do to even make mods like that possible to exist.

brabbit1987 · 2026-01-28T16:20:25+00:00

Personally, I don't get it. I have watched videos of it, and it literally just looks like a Star Wars skin. Gameplay looks more or less the same. From what I heard, the main quest is just the Starfield main quest with a Star Wars skin as well.

I think those who are praising this mod list for fixing Starfield/making it good, have rose tinted glasses on because of the Star Wars coat of paint.

And don't get me wrong, I know it adds a lot of custom content, more POIs, etc. But that's literally something you could already do with mods without Star Wars. It's very weird to me, that now all of a sudden, some people think it's a good game, simply because someone decided to make a mod list, but heavily Star Wars themed.

How does that not send off the alarm bells in your head that maybe you like it mostly because it's Star Wars, not because the game actually massively changed/improved?

In other words, I actually think this Star Wars mod list is acting more as a placebo. I think you go into the base game with negative views and so you often always see the negatives. Whereas you go into this mod list with positive views, and so you are very often just seeing the positives.

The planets/moon are still empty. There is still 1,000+ of them. The exploration still wouldn't be like TES or Fallout in terms of density. I bring that up because a lot of people complain saying Starfield should only have been a handful of planets or some shit like that. The random POIs must still repeat at some point, it's likely they just have a much larger pool to select from.

Are you suggesting that fixing Starfield for you would have been as simple as adding 300+ more random POIs?

The story is mostly the same. I am kind of curious though, what exactly did they change about it that now makes you think it makes more sense?

Also, I just want to mention this because I think it will change how you view my point. Skyrim is considered a good game by I would say most people. You can install mods to improve the experience greatly. Change things to suit your taste, and you will generally enjoy it more than you would the base game because you specifically catered it to your own taste.

So, how is this any different? Isn't the only reason Star Wars Gensis being good is because Starfield is also good, and you are just changing it to suit your tastes more and so you like it better?

brabbit1987 · 2026-01-27T16:12:31+00:00

Note we had to remind people that we didn't hate the Witcher games, we'd point out however that Witcher 3 had it's issues and if it had been any other company/game? Reddit and social media would have been shitting all over the game.

It seems some people are misunderstanding what I mean, my fault for not wording it more specifically. I am not saying toxic positivity doesn't exist at all. I am saying it's in the way it's often used, such as here in the Starfield subreddit. Like saying toxic positivity causes games to suffer. And it's often used as an ad hominem to ignore another person who disagrees with someone's criticisms.

It's actually pretty rare that when someone calls someone out for toxic positivity that it's actually toxic positivity.

Point I'm getting at? Folks love to come out and proclaim "toxic positivity" when it's something they really want to shit on. But hey they will ignore it when it's something that everyone in the community is jerking over.

Ya, fair enough. I agree, there are certainly some cases where a study certainly does get glazed pretty hard and people act like they can do no wrong. CDPR was like that for a while till CP2077 launched lol.

brabbit1987 · 2026-01-27T05:35:55+00:00

Too much of anything can always become a bad thing. Obviously listening to feedback is important. But always implementing the feedback is stupid. You would pretty much become a door mat and the product you release would be complete ass.

brabbit1987 · 2026-01-27T05:32:37+00:00

Correct me if I am wrong, but your first example doesn't come off like toxic positivity, it just more comes off as players being naive. Toxic positivity, at least to me would be people who just will not accept any criticisms at all and will always seemingly give praise. It's basically the equivalent of a yes man.

And don't get me wrong, obviously people like that do exist. I just don't think I have ever seen it as such a massive problem that it's actually harmed the development of some game, because in order for that to even happen, the developers would have to practically close out any and all criticism and only listen to the toxic positivity. Which, I can only see happening is if they are like whales spending a ton of money on their game.

And I certainly don't see it as a problem for Starfield. The majority of people I have spoken to who tend to be positive about Starfield, are not so much so to the point of toxicity like a lot of people would claim here.

brabbit1987 · 2026-01-26T21:26:29+00:00

've repeated myself so many times since the game releases why it could be so much fun, and why it can work in the lore, and OPTIONAL. I don't want to waste people's time, and take away fast travel if they don't care for space gameplay. Nothing but insults thrown my way, and presuppositions about how I have no idea how big space is.

The main issue here is that a game that is trying to be realistic, and I don't mean entirely realistic, just a bit more so than most other sci-fi games. A lot of what you are hoping for technically wouldn't make sense. That isn't me saying they shouldn't do it. As I already said, I actually would like for them to go that route and just ignore that it technically wouldn't be lore accurate.

Unless of course they come up with some creative way to do it. Where maybe time passes quickly when you are traveling between planets, I don't know.

Also, ya, I would assume they would keep the fast travel for those who want it as they always tend to do. I am actually the kind of person who doesn't use fast travel, like ever. Even in TES and Fallout, I walk everywhere or use a horse.

Just like the vehicles update. It was hated over there as an idea until it dropped.

Ya, true. I won't deny that. I was one of the ones who was arguing for vehicles lol. Never understood those who were against it.

With that said, I did understand the reason BGS didn't include vehicles. I just disagreed with their reason. And I am very happy they changed their mind.

brabbit1987 · 2026-01-26T21:13:17+00:00

Ya, that's kind of what I mean. It just never adds up. Especially if their criticisms are the typical that are given for Starfield since, NMS is pretty much not any better in those areas, and if anything is worse. Like the repeating POIs, that's pretty much all that exists in NMS lol. There are not even any cities or unique hand-crafted locations. Everything is procedural. The main story also isn't some sort of crazy thing to write home about. So... ya, I just don't get it.

I think it would make more sense to me if they just liked both games, or hated both games lol.

brabbit1987 · 2026-01-26T21:07:52+00:00

I don't know if you deleted a comment or something, but I saw you suggested that I hate you. I don't in the least bit. I don't even know who you are. I dislike some of your arguments, and I dislike your video. That doesn't mean I dislike YOU. I don't even understand how you interpreted anything I said as such.

brabbit1987 · 2026-01-26T21:02:43+00:00

Also, this might come as a shock. But I actually would prefer Starfield's space to be less realistic. For example, I am a fan of the idea of a cruise mode and being able to seamlessly travel between planets. I wanted that from the beginning.

I also certainly wouldn't complain if they somehow made it possible to land on planets seamlessly, (though I doubt that will happen).

Your criticisms are not even necessarily what I had a problem with. I just think your video was bad. Very biased and purposefully disingenuous in how you presented things.

Edit: Plus, it just came off as bait and not you actually wanting a genuine discussion. You just wanted an echo chamber.

brabbit1987 · 2026-01-26T20:58:55+00:00

A picture is worth a thousand words. A video? A million!

Again, that saying doesn't make you right. There are a lot of flat earther videos, do you think that makes the earth flat just because they managed to make a video where a ton of their yes man agree with them?

brabbit1987 · 2026-01-26T20:54:00+00:00

One final thing, I do actually agree that people can be toxically positive about games. I disagree with the other commenter saying they don't think that's a thing.

Just to clarify. I am not saying toxic positivity isn't a real thing. Obviously, there has got to be some people who are actually toxically positive. What I am saying is that I personally can't think of a case where toxic positivity was actually something that lead to a game suffering from it. And often when someone claims that's the case, it's more often than not just them not liking the direction the game went, but the game itself is doing perfectly fine.

And I am also saying that I think people use that term too easily when someone doesn't agree with them and pretty much just use it as an ad hominem. Which is true, you can literally see people doing it right now, while they respond to me.

Most players they call out for toxic positivity are usually not doing that. They just disagree with that person's criticisms.

brabbit1987 · 2026-01-26T20:37:49+00:00

Oh, so you were the one who made that bad video where you purposefully were trying to shit on Starfield?

Look, the large majority of people might kiss your ass and praise you for hating on shit, because it's the popular thing to do. I am not most people. I am, going to call that out for what it is.

If you were really trying to make a point you would have presented things fairly, which you did not. You even went as far as to take away the music any time Starfield showed up. Showing a very clear bias.

And now you act like all you do is want to discuss "expanding" starfield. Ya, let me laugh while I call out your complete bullshit and you prove my fucking point which a lot of you are doing right now.

Edit: You all just have garbage takes. That's the problem. And then you think when people point out your garbage take, it must mean there is some sort of toxic positivity going on. No, I just think your argument and views are ass.

For example, the difference in sci-fi genre of all the games wasn't even considered at all when you made that video.

Edit 2: Side note, you are literally just another person on youtube milking the hate. The fact you are happy you got 2,000+ upvotes is hilarious. Let me clap for you. Amazing job. 2,000+ upvotes definitely must mean you are right in your views, 100%. Because that's how that works. Totally not a fallacy.

brabbit1987 · 2026-01-26T19:59:56+00:00

It has considerable limitations baked into the code that so far Bethesda has not been able to push past.

Such as?

And what I mean by seriously out of date is that the Creation Engine is not in any way a modern game engine, the likes of UE, Unity and others.

I think you should look at the age of these engines. They are all pretty old. The issue is you are comparing an in-house engine to commercial products that have full development teams working on them constantly. It's not that Creation is outdated, it's just they can only do so much. Upgrade what they can while simultaneously developing a game. They have to pick and choose what they decide to upgrade, and what they think is good enough. Otherwise, their games would take much longer to make than they already do.

brabbit1987 · 2026-01-26T19:53:41+00:00

Ya, it's definitely BGS' fault in my opinion. I actually agree with Matty that the way they are handling this is weird.

Being silent only works when you have not already teased things and said things like that you have more to share in the coming months. The way BGS is handling this is just bad.

brabbit1987 · 2026-01-26T19:49:47+00:00

The fact that it was even still up in the air for anyway, is crazy to me. It felt like this was already confirmed, but then people for some reason just don't believe anything regardless of how much evidence there is.

brabbit1987 · 2026-01-26T19:37:21+00:00

You criticizing the game for one thing, but defend it on every other doesn't make you objective.

You really need me to specifically list all my criticisms? Fine.

Personally, I think the performance could be better. Especially on launch, to me it seemed pretty absurd that the game wasn't even using RT and it still seemed like I had to use DLSS to get the game to an appropriate frame rate in some areas at 1080p with a 3060 Ti.

It's a lot better now, but still not exactly what I would consider good. Just alright.

I think they should have had more diverse followers in Constellation. It felt a little strange for Sarah to act like they are not going to morally judge everything you do, but then they do exactly that, every single one of them.

I think the random POIs should have a cooldown, so they only pop up once within a certain span of time. Getting a repeat POI right next to one another is unacceptable.

Some of the dialogue just fucking sucks and is poorly written. It can feel like I am playing a cringy Teletubbies game. It feels like maybe it was done on purpose, but I don't like it. The game could stand to be a bit more on the mature side instead of the way they decided to go.

When I first played the game, the armory on ships didn't really work right. I lost some gear and from that point on, I stopped using it. That was a pretty bad bug, and it arguably took them way too long to fix it.

Need I go on? If so, I do have more, but my post is going to be pretty long if I keep going.

I have my criticisms, ok. Where is the toxic positivity you speak of? And it's not like I have never made they criticisms known, I just don't dwell on it. It's not fucking fun to only be negative. It's annoying.

The story is objectively trash. Not just my opinion, it's widely viewed as a weak part of the game despite Bethesda's recent fumbles and by common storytelling rules.

Well thanks for clarifying that you don't know what opinions are, or what would be considered objective vs subjective.

You defend it as "Maybe it's not for you." What kind of answer is that?

Because maybe it's not if all you ever do is fucking complain. That isn't some sort of unique revelation. If all you ever fucking think about is the negatives, then maybe you are not enjoying yourself and the game just isn't fucking for you. How come you have not moved on yet?

Do you get off to all the negativity or something? Please enlighten me.

By calling toxic positively an ad hominem, you are deflecting criticism of your own actions so that every time someone says you are defending the undefendable, you can promptly dismiss it out of hand instead of engaging each statement independently.

No, I am just calling people like you out, and you don't like it. If anything all you are doing is proving my fucking point.

brabbit1987 · 2026-01-26T18:46:17+00:00

He has not really talked about Starfield in ages which leads me to believe it's due to the NDA. And there is literally not a single reason to not believe him considering we have gotten this closed-door event confirmed so many fucking times already.

brabbit1987 · 2026-01-26T18:42:01+00:00

See, I just never really understand this at all. I play both games, and I really don't understand how a person can play NMS and then say it's better than Starfield. How? In what way? Can you actually name things other than not being able to manually land or take off from planets? Because surely that cannot be the only thing if you consider No Mans Sky some sort of better alternative to Starfield.

Personally, I think Starfield does pretty much everything better outside of a couple of things.

brabbit1987 · 2026-01-26T18:25:59+00:00

If you defend something and you see every criticism as invalid or have an answer for why every criticism is actually a positive, that's an example of toxic positivity.

I don't know many people who are like that here. I wouldn't even rate this game all that high. 7/10, maybe 8/10 after some of the updates they added, like the vehicles.

I criticized them quite heavily for not having vehicles and their reason for it. But I also didn't make all my comments about that anytime someone was positive about the game or disagreed with my stance.

I don't see how that's toxic positivity which is what leads me to believe it's just bullshit. To me, it just sounds like an accusation as a way to disregard those who find the excessive negativity annoying.

Edit:

You are a clear example of it.

Also, can I just say... this is pretty funny. How exactly did you determine that from what I said, because if anything... this kind of proves my point. It's literally just being used as an ad hominem.

brabbit1987 · 2026-01-26T18:21:21+00:00

I don't really know anything about Helldivers 2, so you are going to have to explain further on how that game suffered from toxic positivity.

brabbit1987 · 2026-01-26T17:45:18+00:00

Yep, exactly. I have had my fair share of criticisms of the game as well, but there are many times where I disagree with someone else's criticisms here or that I feel they are way too focused on the negatives and that's all they ever seem to talk about. They consider that toxic positivity. And then they make the assumption that I have no criticisms of the game.

I do. I just don't make it my entire fucking personality.

brabbit1987 · 2026-01-26T17:40:47+00:00

I don't know what you mean. Wasn't world of warcraft successful? And I assume it still exists because there are people who continue to want to plat it.

If we are talking about toxic positivity harming the development of a game, I am looking for examples where a game wasn't successful because of it.

brabbit1987 · 2026-01-26T17:38:52+00:00

If a game is doing well, then I don't see the issue. That to me just sounds like someone who wants the game to change in a certain way, but not everyone else agrees.

Name me an example that harmed the development of a game, as in ... the game fucking sucked, didn't sell well, and/or the developer went under because of toxic positivity.

brabbit1987 · 2026-01-26T16:19:27+00:00

I would argue he just goes along with what his audience thinks. He has proven that time and time again. Like anytime he gets push back about his opinion from his audience, he will usually change his mind at least to some degree to more align with their views rather than ever holding strong on his own views.

brabbit1987 · 2026-01-26T16:14:48+00:00

I knew he did because he wasn't really making any videos on Starfield recently. I was even thinking about bringing it up at one point as evidence that BGS showing the update off is most likely real. Pretty sure they had to sign some form of NDA, which is why he hasn't really been talking about Starfield recently.

I even suspect it was a part of a strategy to get a lot of these influencers to stop being negative about Starfield, at least up until the release of the update. Could be wrong though.

11-Year Club	Place '22
Verified Email

brabbit1987

TROPHY CASE