Hacker News Reader

Comment by nicolaslem | Hacker News Reader

Comparing Starfield and Cyberpunk 2077 is a bit unfair, three months in Cyberpunk 2077 was also stiff and unfinished.

But the Starfield feels quite finished. It is just poorly designed and written. Cyberpunk's gameplay design is not the best, but it is still better than Starfield's, and the story and characters are much better.

Played them each back to back this year - CP2077 characters are worlds better. Starfields World is better.

I put CP2077 as a clear winner mostly due to stiff dialogue in Starfield and poor choice corralling. If they put 3+ years into polishing SF, I can def see it turning into a clean masterpiece.

People often say this, but the problems with Starfield are not the kinds of thing that are likely to be fixed post-launch.

And they definitely didn't change any of the writing or the story in Cyberpunk 2077 post-launch. The only thing they did was add a couple of more side missions, and release a story-focused expansion.

There is a difference between being buggy and being poorly designed. This is something Bethesda used to understand.

Bathesda has been trending down pretty badly. Fallout 4 was the point their games tipped and started to be very meh.

I see your point, but I also think if a publisher sells you a game, they should consider it ready to play and compare to other games.

That’s why I added “I hope it gets its time to shine” , with a bit of work Bethesda could follow in the footsteps of CDPR.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com