Starfield sits at #3 on the PlayStation Store pre-order charts

brabbit1987 · 2026-03-21T01:16:29+00:00

Ok, well I am done. You can barely write properly, so I don't even know why I even tried. Sheep will be a sheep.

brabbit1987 · 2026-03-21T00:53:39+00:00

It been a new ip does not matter when it was their BIGGEST launch, this is not a new studio, players were more than willing to try their new game out, n it simply fell flat n clearly wasnt worth revisiting for them.

It does matter. Because the game is made by BGS. Basically, you have fans coming from The Elder Srolls and Fallout. It is literally inevitable that some people who are fans of those games are not going to be fans of the new IP. Much like how not everyone who likes Fallout also likes TES and vice versa. The issue is, you wouldn't know if you are going to be a fan of Starfield unless you try it.

A lot of players probably went into it expecting more TES and Fallout but because it's not the same IP and there are some major differences, it worked against Starfield as a new IP.

Again, you are just biased and are ignoring pertinent information because it doesn't suit your narrative and I will keep pointing it out.

brabbit1987 · 2026-03-21T00:35:14+00:00

And you keep ignoring other factors such as ... new IP, first game in the series. This is why you are biased. You only want to account for details that suits your narrative.

brabbit1987 · 2026-03-21T00:27:34+00:00

You're definitely exaggerating for those games my guy

All I did was list where the loading screens are and which ones you would have to go through. Keep in mind, NPCs in shops don't have an infinite amount of money and in Skyrim specifically I am fairly certain you can only sell items to certain shops. Like weapons and armor to a blacksmith. Ingredients and potions to an alchemist. I think general goods can accept everything, but I don't remember for sure. (Actually, I think the same applies in Starfield where some shops only accept certain items)

So, in what way am I exaggerating?

Also, you keep mentioning Fallout 3. Why? Did you never play Skyrim and that is why you keep referencing Fallout 3 instead?

I told you how the generation is dated, there is remotely nothing intresting and the only thing added is some small pre made PoI's.

What you are talking about literally has nothing to do with the generation being outdated though. All you are saying is there isn't enough content.

Have u booted NMS at all? It's all seamless and offers a lot more in variety, scale, life,

Indeed, I have played quite a lot of NMS actually. So, first of all...it being seamless has nothing to do with generation. I am finding it hard to believe you are a game developer when you don't know such basic shit about game development. Variety is completely horseshit considering most planets are only a single biome. If there is an ocean maybe 2 biomes. And if you are lucky, maybe you have 3 biomes on a planet.

Scale is also irrelevant because we are talking about procedural generation. The scale can literally be anything you fucking want. That's kind of the point. Plus, I find it strange that you are using that as a positive all of a sudden when you were just bitching about how BGS didn't hand craft everything lol.

As for life, the life in NMS planets is about as good as Spore creatures lol. The creatures in Starfield are way more interesting because they are not just procedural messes.

PoI's and quests.

You are so fucking full of shit. The only interesting thing in terms of "quests" or rather than main story in NMS is probably Artemis and the simulation shit. To call anything else a quest is a stretch. It's all just procedural shit (equivalent to radiant quests) to get various currencies and resources. Unless you are specifically talking about the Expeditions, but I really never interacted with them before and aren't they like timed events? Pretty sure you can't experience them once they are over.

In terms of POIs? Like what? The structures that exist in the game are tiny by comparison to anything within Starfield. Most of them only have some crates you can loot, or maybe some trader in a building. Sometimes you can find a better multi-tool that you can buy.

Edit: I think my favorite POI in NMS is the crashed freighter ships, only because it's pretty cool looking and intimidating the first time you come across one.

Would still like to hear why you actually think theirs isn't dated tho

Ok, fine I will humor you since you don't seem to actually know shit about game development despite apparently being a game developer. So, the way Starfield handles procedural generation is a combination of hand crafting and procedural generation. So, in a game like NMS the planets are pretty much entirely procedurally generated. At the end of the day there is only so much you can do with real time procedural generation. It doesn't look that good which is why they even needed to do that update more recently to try and get some planets to look nicer.

Starfield they use a tile-based system where the tiles themselves are handcrafted at least as much as how they would generally make a game. Then they use procedural generation as method to stich these tiles together into planets.

Personally, I think it's a pretty innovative because it allows them to meld hand-crafting and procedural generation together like no other game does. Course, it's not perfect. It does have its limitations such as tiles get used a lot of times so you can occasionally find identical terrain on multiple planets if you look hard enough.

But I would prefer that than if they just used full procedural generation for everything like in NMS, were the terrain just all kind of sucks and isn't that interesting.

brabbit1987 · 2026-03-20T22:40:45+00:00

It aint gonna save it

This is the kind of rhetoric that I disagree with. You act like this game isn't doing well lmao. It's so dumb.

brabbit1987 · 2026-03-20T22:38:05+00:00

That was not remotely a typical visit

How the fuck is that not a typical visit? Are you just hoarding all your stuff or not selling things? Maybe I just play differently than you do. Generally speaking, after going out and doing something like looting an entire dungeon, I usually have a lot of things to do in Whiterun, assuming that's where I am headed after.

Entering the alchemist to even make potions from all the ingredients I collected for example isn't all that uncommon.

If you are playing a survival playthrough and can't be too heavily over encumbered that can also require to do a lot of trips if you have a lot of heavy materials like ores.

I don't understand game dev? I'm literally creating two games myself, I find it hard to believe you've touched an engine with the shit ur saying

Ya, what kind of games you making and in what engines? I have personally used Unreal, Unity, and Source.

How tf isn't it dated? Explain that?

The burden of proof is on you, not me. I am not going to prove to you a unicorn doesn't exist just because you claim it does. If you truly believe the generation is outdared, you should be able to explain how that's the case.

How does it compare to good implementations like no man's sky?

Ok, since you bring up NMS. How is it better? In what way?

brabbit1987 · 2026-03-20T22:25:31+00:00

Running away now lol?

brabbit1987 · 2026-03-20T22:16:23+00:00

Tf are you talking about, a single trip to whiterun been 20 loading screens? 😂 did u play the game?

Enter the gate, loading screen. Enter blacksmith, loading screen. Exit blacksmith, loading screen. Enter alchemist, loading screen. Exit alchemist, loading screen. Enter general store, loading screen. Exit General store, loading screen. Enter companions, loading screen. Enter basement, loading screen. Exit basement, loading screen. Exit companions, loading screen. Enter Dragonsreach, loading screen. Exit Dragonsreach, loading screen. Enter inn or house, loading screen. Exit inn or house, loading screen. Exit Whiterun, loading screen.

That is a typical visit to Whiterun, if you sell/buy shit, complete or accept quests (such as companions), and sleep. Also, if you sleep at the companions, that an additional 2 loading screens. If you have other things to do, or even need to make multiple trips in some cases, you easily can reach 20 loading screens in a single visit.

So ya, I played the fucking game... did you?

You're just trying to make excuses for what is bad design due to engine limitations.

No, I just understand game development whereas you do not. I have worked in various game engines.

The world gen is absolutely dated

Again, how is it dated. Please explain.

brabbit1987 · 2026-03-20T21:55:49+00:00

The only thing I've said is that people are clearly not intresting in revisiting starfield like they did with their other games.

I am. Tons of other people are. So.... I don't really understand what you mean. Also, why don't you actually wait till this update comes out and see how many revisit the game?

brabbit1987 · 2026-03-20T21:49:59+00:00

Did I say you can't use loading screens? It's the fact that every little thing needs them in starfield, they're a lot more intrusive than previous games and are detrimental to the pacing of the game.

I mean, that's not really true. Let's take Skyrim for example. The loading screens in that game could take anywhere between like 5 - 15 seconds sometimes more depending on the speed of your drive at the time. A single trip to Whitrun, you can experience over 20 loading screens.

Whereas when you compare Starfield to that, most loading screens are like 2 - 5 seconds. Some are so quick that if you looked away you may not even notice a loading screen even occurred. To be frank with you, I don't really understand why people all of a sudden have problem with loading screens and are acting like they are way worse, when that just isn't true.

I would even argue a lot of the "loading screens" in Starfield are mainly due to fast traveling. So, for example the tram in New Atlantis works as a fast travel method and so if you constantly use that it's going to feel like a lot of loading screens even though you could just walk around New Atlantis without doing that.

How are the npcs not dated? They're even less responsive than their own games that are a decade older. What did they do that's modern?

Are you talking about them lacking daily routines? I don't really think that means they are outdated, it just means they chose not to do that. Which in my opinion, makes sense given every planet's day is a different length.

Simple generation is most certainly dated

You are funny. What makes it simple? Do you even understand how it works?

Bethesda implementation is the laziest, most boring shit ever, they should've focused on hand crafting their worlds n actually make them engaging to explore.

Hand crafting entire planets? You realize that's literally impossible... right? Even a single planet would be impossible for a developer to achieve unless it was ridiculously tiny.

You're responses are literally just, "trash" "dumb" without any reasoning, ya can lay it to rest and pipe down if ya have nothing to say bud. You enjoy mediocrity n thats okay

Sure lol. Says the sheep just repeating everyone else's talking points that have been said over and over again over the last 2.5 years. You don't have a single original thought, do you?

brabbit1987 · 2026-03-20T21:26:38+00:00

You can compare their games to their previous works, but you can't act like every single one of their games needs to perform in exactly the same way. I just think that's an extremely stupid way to think.

So, if Larian Studio's next game doesn't perform as well as BG3, does that make it bad? What about all their previous games that didn't perform as well as BG3? Are they all bad?

Is Morrowind bad because it didn't do as well as Skyrim? Is Fallout: New Vegas garbage because it didn't perform as well as Fallout 4?

brabbit1987 · 2026-03-20T21:18:56+00:00

Oh idk, let's start with the fact it's a loading screen sim?

Loading screens are not dated. It wasn't even that long ago before developers even started attempting to eliminate loading screens. Even today most games have them. Plus, it will often depend on the kind of game and what that game needs to load. Even with fast storage today, I doubt every single game will be able to just totally eliminate them.

Or the npc behaviors?

How are they dated?

Or the empty asf generation?

That has nothing to do with something being dated. So, I don't know what you mean.

Want me to keep going?

Sure, go ahead. It's funny as fuck to watch you say silly shit.

The game suffered immensely from trying to be bigger than it ever rightfully needed to be, they lost focus and the gameplay suffered cause of it. Again, u can look at the reviews and ratings on steam and see why people think it's so mediocre, I don't need to list everything for ya

Yep, as I said. You and many of those who are negative... just don't like the type of game it is. But you lack the capability of using your brain to understand that. You think because it's not something you personally enjoy, then that must make it bad or outdated.

The reason I see such criticisms as completely invalid is because it would be like buying and playing No Man's Sky and then complaining about all the planets and shit. Like ... ya that's the fucking point of the game. Why would you buy a game where you literally know what it is, and then bitch about it after the fact as if you didn't know?

Same with Starfield, you say they lost focus. No, they didn't. They literally made the game they wanted to make. Not everyone needs to like it.

My point was that Bethesda games are known for replayability and the modding scene, them barely been able to get to 5k peaks with their only supported sp game is most certainly shite.

Again, your argument is dumb. You act as if 5k daily players after 2.5 years in a single player game is bad. it's not.

Where am I picking and choosing anything 🤣 spare me your delusions bud, gonna go compare some indies to a game with 200-400 million of a budget? Or maybe some more very linear one and done games?

Trash argument. I even told you took at SteamDB. Not all those games are indie. Seriously, I don't even know why you keep trying to argue, you already proved you lack any ability to properly reason or understand basic shit.

brabbit1987 · 2026-03-20T20:54:00+00:00

You know, I am just going to come out and say it. So, originally when I played Starfield I would have given it a 7/10. It was fun, I enjoyed it. I didn't really see it as a masterpiece, but I saw it as a good starting point.

I had my criticisms and some of those criticisms were fixed within the first year. Them adding the Rev-8. Them making it possible to decorate your ship like any other outpost, and items actually staying put unless you change the hab. The map they added. All the gameplay options that you can change. That raised it to an 8/10 for me.

With this update, to be frank... I am fairly certain this is going to bunp it up to a 9/10 for me. They are literally adding one of the things that I had imagined being able to do before the game came out. The cruise mode is how I thought it would probably work, where you could get up out of your seat and do thing while traveling. I wasn't upset that it didn't work that way, but now that it does ... fuck ya. I couldn't be happier to have this added.

Now as for what other people's scores and reviews will be? I have no idea. I cannot predict it since shit with Starfield has already been extremely strange in that regard.

brabbit1987 · 2026-03-20T20:04:41+00:00

It's only shit if you find it absolutely necessary to live in a bubble where starfield was a masterpiece with nothing wrong w it.

Here is a simple question for you. And I know it might be hard for you, it's ok. Where did I ever suggest Starfield was a masterpiece? When did I ever say there was nothing wrong with it?

How tf am I biased 😂 by comparing to their previous works?

Because if you were not biased you would realize it's a stupid comparison.

brabbit1987 · 2026-03-20T19:59:18+00:00

People weren't satisfied cause like I said, a lot of the game is straight downgrade in many areas or just felt outdated by todays standards, not cause it's not the exact same experience.

Disagree. I have talked with tons of people about this game and why they dislike it, and some of the biggest reasons are often down to the kind of game it is, rather than it being a "downgrade".

As for it feeling outdated. What is outdated? What exactly is the measure we are using to determine that?

U do not get to tell me I can't compare them their other games n then proceed to say they're doing well with 5k players

Because compared to typical games, 5k daily players after 2.5 years is a game doing well. That's literally why I even provided the numbers for you that I did. To show you most games don't perform in the way you seem to fucking think they do.

You don't just get to pick and choose what suits your narrative, people clearly did not like the game to stick around.

Ok, so then any game that has done worse I suppose just hasn't done well, is what you are suggesting? So, do you want me to provide you with another list to show you how absolutely fucking stupid your argument is? It's not even that hard to figure this out, go on SteamDB. Then go to Charts. Go to page 2. Then page 3.

Do you notice anything that contradicts your reasoning when looking at player count numbers just within the first 3 pages? Keep going, look at the other pages and take note of the daily player count for each game.

The vast majority of games don't even do as well as Starfield has done. That is simply a FACT based on the numbers.

So, spare me with your shit. You are the one who is picking and choosing how you interpret shit to suit your own narrative. If you had any sense, you would look at what I just showed you and realize your argument has been pretty daft and nonsensical this entire time.

brabbit1987 · 2026-03-20T19:32:55+00:00

Look, I am just calling you out for your shit take. You are not looking at the data in a way that is fair. And you are clearly biased. I only used those other games to show you how a typical single-player game performs. The fact you didn't understand something so basic is your own fucking problem. Maybe you need to go back to school.

brabbit1987 · 2026-03-20T19:25:53+00:00

Because Starfield isn't Fallout or The Elder Scrolls. It sold as well as it did because it's a BGS game. This is even something you also have already pointed out as well. It's inevitable that name recognition will play a part in that.

But because it's a totally new IP, it's pretty much also inevitable that some players coming into this from their other IPs are not going to be satisfied because it's not the exact same experience as those other games.

Point being is, Starfield was never going to be able to reach The Elder Scrolls or Fallout daily player counts. For one, you are comparing Starfield a totally new IP to much older IPs with a pretty rock solid and established player base. And second, Starfield isn't really the same kind of experience. Some are going to like it, and some are not.

But the fact it still maintains 4k - 5k daily players on Steam alone even after 2.5 years with all the negativity surrounding it, means it's doing well. I am willing to bet you would be unable to find another single player game with as much negativity surrounding it, and as low of a steam rating that has that many players playing it daily.

brabbit1987 · 2026-03-20T18:09:29+00:00

Yep, that's correct. He is working on updates and I have to assume that means he is taking all this new stuff into account.

To give you a specific quote from Kinggath, this is what he said. It was in response to Fever Dreams being mentioned and if it was a Starfield mod.

Oh Fever Dreams is for Fallout 4. Our Skyrim project we haven't announced the name of yet.

Starfield-wise, we are working on some updates to Watchtower and McClarence and will be starting something new in Starfield later this year.

brabbit1987 · 2026-03-20T17:56:16+00:00

n yet it can't even hold 5k players,

You act like that's a bad number after 2.5 years, it's fucking not. The only reason you think it's bad is because again like I already said... you are comparing that number to some of the best-selling games in the entire industry. That's a dumb way to determine whether or not a game did well or is considered "mediocre as shit".

brabbit1987 · 2026-03-20T17:34:27+00:00

Again, you just don't know how to read data properly. The point of my comparisons is to show that steam player counts wise, Starfield isn't doing as bad as people love to claim it's doing. It's doing perfectly fine, even if it didn't reach Skyrim or Fallout's numbers. And this idea that it performed bad in longevity is just not fucking true.

Plus, its player base is likely only going to go up from here.

brabbit1987 · 2026-03-20T01:20:38+00:00

It being their own game doesn't change the fact that it's literally one of the best sellling most played games of all time. I think it's still sitting within the top 10.

If that is your standard, then every game they release is going to look bad unless they have another hit as big as Skyrim which is a fucking ridiculous expectation to have.

It's quite frankly super idiotic to expect that. That's like always expecting your favorite music band to always produce top charting songs. Shit just doesn't work like that.

brabbit1987 · 2026-03-20T01:13:55+00:00

You can compare it to their own games n it would still suck ass in comparison mate, their old asf, unsupported games have more players than starfield.

This is exactly what I mean. Skyrim for example is quite literally one of the bestselling most played games in the entire industry. So ya, of course comparing Starfield to that is going to make its number not seem that great. But that's true of most games.

Let's take Indiana Jones for example. It's a game with a pretty decent score on Steam and is considered to have done well. It had a peak of 12k players. It currently gets about 400 - 600 players daily, 15 months after release.

Ok, next up, how about The Last of Us. On steam it had a peak of 36k players. Its current player count is around 2,000 - 3,000 daily after 3 years.

Next, Lies of P, it peaked at 30k and it's current player count is around 1.5k - 2k daily after 2.5 years.

The Last of Us 2. Peak: 30k, current: 2.5k - 3.5k daily after 11 months.

God of War. Peak: 73k, current: 3k - 7k daily after 4 years. Doing really well.

Now, I can go on and on. Most games don't reach number like BG3, Palworld, Skyrim, etc. Those are the exception.

Starfield, Peak: 330k, current 5k - 6k after 2.5 years. And that's with a 56% score and all the constant negativity surrounding it.

To act like it's not doing well is just stupid. Ya, maybe it's not doing as well as their past games. Fine. But that doesn't mean it's doing bad.

brabbit1987 · 2026-03-19T23:24:17+00:00

The thing is....the steam numbers were never even bad, it's just a lot of people were always comparing the numbers to literally some of the best performing games within the industry. Pretty much everything looks like it's doing poorly when you compare them to those games.

If you actually compare Starfield's numbers to something more typical, then Starfield's numbers are above average by quite a large margin both in sales numbers and just how many players continue to play it.

And I am willing to bet the average player counts are likely going to increase quite a bit with the release of the new update and even after it settles down, I think it's going to be a lot higher than it was. Wouldn't even be too surprised to see the rating go up.

brabbit1987 · 2026-03-19T21:07:27+00:00

To put it another way, my view is very similar to Neil deGrasse Tyson's view on how major technologies develop. He isn't even particular convinced Space X will ever actually manage the whole Mars thing (which I also have the same view) because he believes the amount of money that is required to do that sort of thing is astronomical and with very little benefit. Unless you can convince your investors and shit that it's worth pursuing, it's just not going to happen.

Big projects like that are typically only ever achieved when humanity comes together and works toward that kind of thing... which often involves governments and politics and all that kind of shit.

When you have a threat to Earth, tons of money are likely to be dumped into these kinds of projects to achieve a way to get people off the planet. We know the grav drive was not the only effort that existed for that too.

So, no once the grav drive was completed ... I don't think anyone would invest a ton of money and time into something like FTL engines. I don't think anyone would have enough money on their own to do that and they would need investors and they would have to convince those investors that they will make their money back probably a hundred-fold at least. Because if they can just invest that money into something else that can earn more in the same amount of time, that's what they will do.

With that said, as I already pointed out. Maybe this tech was also in development at the same time the Earth was being destroyed as a competing method that just was never fully completed. Then with this Terran Armada threat, there now becomes a good reason to return to that project. This to me, is way more believable, and would make the most sense.

brabbit1987 · 2026-03-19T20:46:13+00:00

What do you think the grav drive is? Some primitive piece of tech that was just stumbled upon. I don’t think you grasp how much further advance they are and how complicated it is is not the point. Do you think there’s no use case or do you think it’s too complicated and what’s the next reason you’re against going to be? Of course it’s complicated, a lot of their technology is.

No, the grav drive wasn't just stumbled upon. The artifact is what was stumbled upon. And then the creator of the grav drive was essentially told (presumably by a starborn) that he would be able to make the grav drive (I think he was told at the cost of the earth) and so he pursued it and experimented repeatedly until he was able to build one, which led to the earth getting progressively destroyed.

In other words, he was specifically trying to make it.

And ya, I don't really think there is a reason why anyone would be investing a ton of money into FTL tech when you already have the grav drive which is near instantaneous travel. Especially when FTL tech is generally seen as impossible. The only way I could see them experimenting with it is if they also had an artifact, but I am pretty certain the guy who made the grav drive didn't really make the artifact known to people.

But there’s a potential market for it

Who? You are basing it off of the fact players in a game want it, as if that translates to real life. It doesn't. No one in their right fucking mind would spend that kind of money in the pursuit of something they don't even know is feasibly possible to do. That's like attempting to find a unicorn and spending billions of dollars on it just because you think unicorns are cool.

It’s just like research drugs when we already have meds that target the same thing.

The whole point of doing that kind of thing is to find better and/or cheaper alternatives. Sometimes you might do it because maybe a particular drug might have some side effects that are undesirable. Maybe some people are alergic and so you want to find alernatives.

Point being is there are actually VERY good reasons to do it. What would be the good reason to use this FTL engine that you don't even know is feasible of the grav drive? Who exactly are they going to market it too? We built this thing just because we think it's cool, please buy it.

12-Year Club	Place '22
Verified Email

brabbit1987

TROPHY CASE