Topic: Official Push Square Xbox Thread

@colonelkilgore I hope you’re always here mate. That’s my input 👍

@render @AgentCooper 🍻 😆

Xbox Series X is $349.99 on Amazon right now.

@Ralizah Starfield is worth a go. It’s not my cup of tea really but it’s one of the most obviously subjective games I’ve played, there’s clearly an angle where I can understand people loving it even if it’s not for me. I’ve noticed a lot more people laughing at the game not doing great than ones defending it to be fair, that’s just the nature of online discourse. It’s one of those games that I just don’t think is possible to judge without giving it a go yourself, there’s moments of genuine immersion if you’re in the right mood.

@Ennui There’s a certain level of quality that can be judged from an outside perspective. Usually in the sense of it being rubbish like that Kong game and Gollum. I usually err on the side of believing that every game should be played to be judged but with the rise of YouTube playthroughs and all that, a whole generation of gamers grew up never actually playing their favourite games. Persona being a prime example because a section of the fandom had the Switch and were too young to have experienced the games the first time round and so resorted to port begging. Something like Starfield though, with it being played entirely at your own pace and a lot of the fun being the individual stories unique to your playthrough and the exploration you do, I’m not sure that can be quantified by watching streams.

@Ennui I'd argue that Expectation was astronomically unrealistic after the MS acquisition.

Its a 'Bethesda' game - the SAME devs etc that made Fallout 76 and Fallout 4 prior on the exact same Game engine. Neither of those were 'cutting' edge when they released and were an unfinished, unoptimised mess at launch.

Yet somehow, between Bethesda being 'over' and a 'joke' - releasing Skyrim on 'everything', all the bugs etc and then MS ownership, they are suddenly expected to release a game that EVERYONE loves and rushes out to buy, a game that truly shows off Graphically as well as play perfectly etc etc. It's a 'typical' Bethesda game - albeit not as bug ridden and better optimised as you'd likely have expected from a 'Bethesda' game on Consoles - for better or worse!

The difference is that their previous games were all on a single map - so if you went to a lake or mountain that was completely devoid of anything to do, you just keep walking exploring until you do 'bump' into something. It's a bit different to going to a 'map' specifically and finding it 'empty' - even though it says its not a life supporting planet or has any mission/quest/reason to go there.

Part of the issue, from my perspective, is that some missions/quests are always sending you to different planets so you are having to jump to one area, do something, jump to another area etc instead of 'organically' making your own way to a quest marker and discovering something en-route - it just feels more bitty and less cohesive - couple that with the dated design that they have used for over 20yrs built on aging engine that isn't all that immersive by modern standards, but very typical of Bethesda, and you have Starfield. In fairness, the Combat and movement do feel a big upgrade over Fallout, but it doesn't help that much when the rest feels dated because cut-scenes, interactions etc haven't really 'evolved'.

Now I may 'defend' Bethesda for the way they have those planets etc that are 'pointless' to visit, because they are totally in keeping with the Setting, Story etc. They 'exist' in that context and you as a player have the 'Freedom' to visit IF you choose. The 'reason' they may be 'barren' in this Game is because they would be barren, that no-one had reason to go and explore/settle/mine there - yet! It's really in keeping with the whole premise of the Game. It stems from NASA going to a Barren rock (Moon landing in 1969) and leading to the exploration of Space, settling on 'Some' planets etc - so I can't fault them for them including 'Barren' planets that you may 'choose' to go to, choose to mine for resources, set up a base or just say you visited. But if you don't want to, you never have to go because no Story mission or Quest will take you there...

If this had released under Zenimax, I don't think it would have the 'bashing' it has. I would expect comments like its Typical for Bethesda, when will they 'evolve'? Why are there so many Bugs/glitches? Why is it running at 20fps? The usual 'expectation' for a Bethesda new release. But as its First Party now, Expectations suddenly became significantly different, significantly higher and 'unrealistic'.

I'm definitely not saying its GotY material or that its a 'must' play - As I have always said its a Typical Bethesda game with 'fewer' bugs, better optimisation on Console (not 'perfect btw) than you'd have expected under Zenimax ownership. Combat feels 'better' too but a lot of it is extremely typical and common across ALL Bethesda games but instead of a 'single' Map, they have 1000's in effect and MOST probably are not that interesting to visit but you don't have to...

@BAMozzy That’s my main issue with Starfield, the structure is just inherently bitty. My favourite thing to do in the Elder Scrolls game is just wander, which you can’t really do in Starfield. A lot of the game is great, combat in zero gravity is very cool, but I couldn’t get over the fact that you do have to just spend time in loading screens and menus between every single area because of the nature of going between planets.

@Falcon94 It’s much harder to ruin an Elder Scrolls game, the issue is with just the nature of space and you can’t really get away from that unless there were only a few densely populated planets. I think Elder Scrolls VI will be just as good as it would have been if it was developed straight after Fallout 4, it’s hard to see a shift in mentality between that and Starfield.

Looks fkn perfect fair play!

@Falcon94 Its not really the amount of Planets, its the subject matter that means at some point, you'll have to leave one map to travel to a different map and that breaks up that ability to just keep walking and see what you find.

Its not necessarily the quantity, although it does sound daunting, its blown out of all proportion too online. It's no different from seeing a mountain in the distance and wanting to get to the top, even if its only there to look 'right' in context of the game setting. Just because you can see the moon (or moons/planets) from whatever planet you are on, you can literally jump in a ship and go there - That doesn't mean you should or have reason to, its because they exist and would in that game world, so you have that 'freedom' to go there too.

Maybe they only have about 5% of the Planets that they are Actually part of the game-play loop (missions/quests etc) - the rest are like our solar system - moons or planets too close/far from a sun to support life but may have 'resources' like minerals/metals/gases as you'd expect. Like they never expected people to go right to the edge of their maps to those mountains, especially as All the quests/missions don't go close to them at all, is the same reason the Moon exists - its not just set dressing so to speak, you have a ship, should be able to go there, so can go there. If nothing is there, its because nothing would be there, or should be there and the game doesn't guide or tell you to go there - yet somehow, that is a 'design' fault. A big 'mistake'.

The Mistake is building a game that's not open world and then making you have to jump between worlds to really get anything done. So many quests you pick up require you to 'jump' somewhere and some you'll start thinking they may finish in that one zone, then require some travel instead of 'wandering back across the map and maybe find something - in such a way that it feels 'bitty' and the 'engine itself doesn't help immerse you in enough to forgive the Ambition when a LOT feels copy/pasted from Previous Bethesda games.

Bethesda 'Fans' particularly PC side may well end up loving it and maybe some Mods will come to console too that make a 'difference' but right now its almost like you'd expect from the game had it been made for the 360/earlyXB1 but with more granular detail and more refinement in movement/controls. I'd say average - maybe above if you enjoy the setting, that 'freedom' to build your spaceship and explore all those Solar systems, and Bethesda games in general because it really is exactly what you'd expect Bethesda to make based on Fallout, the theme and their typical RPG template. Its also a bit 'deja vu' at times just a different skin...

Lol at the Steam community trolling Bethesda by voting for Game of the Generation to win the Most Innovative Gameplay of 2023 award. Not quite up there with Boaty McBoatface winning the vote to name the lead Polar Research ship but some top tier trolling all the same 🤣

@PixelDragon I remember saying about this time last year during a Doom Eternal gaming session that I thought Starfield would come to PS probably three years after the Xbox release. This was when it was a game of the generation game (some may consider it still to be).
Hopefully any XB games released are successful so we get ES6, of course I still hope for a PSVR2 update for Skyrim VR and the numerous other Bethesda PSVR1 games, and of course Fallout 4. Highly unlikely but hopefully XB/Bethesda can power our VR dreams.

All of this stuff does make me wonder what happened behind the screens with P Hines as I felt he was miffed about the loss of PS players...but that is just my opinion.

Fairly late with my thoughts of the Developer Direct but here they are.

So I thought it was a really good showcase! It's a unique structure, showing off gameplay but also the developers.

Avowed looks pretty good. I'm mostly impressed by the freedom of customising your loadouts and being able to switch to different ones on the fly. Other than that, it looks like another standard western RPG. I'm sure I'll like it but I kinda get the feeling that Xbox is going to be over-saturated with western RPGs. We had Starfield last year and now Avowed this year. People might get tired of that but I don't know, we'll just have to wait and see.

Hellblade II looks good but we didn't really need to see more gameplay of this game. It was announced five years ago, just release it already lol. Good thing we got a date now (late May) so we won't be waiting too long to play it. Also read that it's going to be around the same length as the first Hellblade, which was fairly short. Have to wonder then why it took them so long to release the game. I feel like this is becoming a trend with Microsoft developers now (another example being Turn 10 with Forza Motorsport) as they sure love taking their sweet time to release their games.

Indiana Jones was definitely the highlight of the show. I'm glad the game will be in first-person in order to distinguish it from Uncharted and Tomb Raider. Using the likeness of Harrison Ford is a good decision, even though it's not his voice. I would've liked to see more gameplay because that aspect feels a bit precarious right now. It this a shooter or not? You see Indy using guns but you're mostly seeing him using the whip and punching. I wouldn't mind a mix of shooting, stealth and melee combat. It wouldn't be fun without a fair amount of shooting. Although maybe he's not the type to use guns? I genuinely can't remember even though I've seen all five movies lol.

So overall, it's looking like it'll be a pretty good year for Xbox in terms of exclusives. Also can't forget Stalker 2, which is coming out in September this year.

@CharlieChooChoo I believe I read that the classic scene in Raiders you describe was actually supposed to be a long choreographed fight with Indy’s whip versus the swordsman, but Harrison Ford had the idea to just shoot him and Spielberg consented. Hard to imagine the movie without that humorous and famous scene. 😄

As far as the Indy game, it plus the Hellblade sequel might be enough to get my attention for dipping into the Xbox world. I’m not sold on Starfield, Forza, or anything else that’s exclusive, but I loved Hellblade and also am a fan of the archeological exploration genre. The first person viewpoint is a turn-off though.

I wonder if Sony is keeping the new Uncharted close to the vest as a way to do a counterpunch when the Indiana Jones game releases.

@Th3solution Actually the part in Raiders was because Harrion Ford had a stomach virus and just wanted to get the scene done with so he could use the bathroom. He told Spielberg, "Cant I just shoot him?" The production crew got a good chuckle out of it and loved the idea so the let him shoot him so he could go get some rest.

If I did want to play anything that xbox has to offer, I can get Gamepass on my new telly. I've not actually tried of any of the gaming apps available, so have no idea what the experience will be like. Especially playing an xbox game with a DualSense controller, which I imagine would be a bit strange at first.

When I tried Stadia on my old telly, the couple games I played were unplayable, so it can't be any worse than that.

I don't wanna come across as a hater or whatever, but I have been kinda surprised by the reception Avowed is getting, seems people are hyped and pleased by what they saw. And I am happy for them of course, but I thought it looked genuinely kinda bad?

We just got done complaining about Bethesda's fairly dated presentation when it comes to things like conversations and character interactions, and this is doing exactly that. I also don't know anyone who liked Skyrim's combat, and I feel like good first person melee combat games can be counted on one hand, and if this showcase is meant to show off the combat at its finest...

I am just not as convinced as others seem to be, is all I am saying.

@Pizzamorg I'll be honest, anything that is a narrative, choice-based rpg is going to struggle in a world after BG3 but I share your sentiment. They never really showed examples of choices that were morally grey. Added to that, the combat looked like a budget version of immortals of aveum. Hope I'm wrong as I really liked new vegas so their take on skyrim sounds like a great idea!

Yeah I thought that combat showcase was rough. Underbaked animations, a real lack of any sense of weight or impact to anything, not to mention that they kept showing that spell slinger build thing and either the dude was just straight up missing, or the hit registration was completely borked. If this is meant to show the peak of the combat to generate hype, I dread to think about how rough the moment to moment combat is.

@JohnnyShoulder Xbox cloud gaming isn't quite there yet. I tried it out about a year ago and it hadn't improved since I first tried it out back in 2020. In fact, it's actually worse now. There's a bloody queue now whenever you boot up a game. Imagine getting home from work and having to wait 5-10 minutes each time before you're "allowed" to play a game. It's absolutely ridiculous.

The experience itself is decent. There's no input lag, but the screen frequently refreshes and that gets annoying over time.